Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage male unemployment in the Swansea group, in West Glamorgan and in Wales as a whole in May 1979 and at the latest available date.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): In May 1979 the rate in the Swansea travel-to-work area was 8·3 per cent., in West Glamorgan 7·4 per cent. and in Wales 8·5 per cent. The corresponding figures for 14 January 1982 are 19·6 per cent., 18·4 per cent. and 19 per cent.

Mr. Anderson: Are not those appalling figures for the rise in male unemployment clear evidence that the destruction of the manufacturing base in West Glamorgan, and in Wales as a whole, has been caused by the Government's monetarist policies. When will the Secretary of State raise his voice in the Cabinet in favour of greater growth and an end to this tragic waste of human resources?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that the figures are serious, and it is an expression of that concern that I have, for example, today announced a record urban programme directed

towards industrial infrastructure and the easing of the consequences of these problems. A total of £15 million represents a 45 per cent. increase in expenditure over last year and is more than double the amount spent in 1979–80. The hon. Gentleman may also agree that there are encouraging signs from the 300 inquiries and the 40 allocations in the enterprise zone that a good deal of new industry is moving into his area.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is general admiration for the way in which he has fought in the Cabinet for Wales? In view of the immense damage being done by the ASLEF strike to the prospect for jobs in the railways industry in Wales, and, still more, for those industries dependent on rail, such as coal and steel, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to ascertain from the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) whether he agrees with the total support expressed by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) for the ASLEF strike?

Mr. Edwards: Fortunately, as my hon. Friend knows, I have no responsibility for the views of Labour Members. He will understand, even if they do not, that a strike of this kind must be gravely damaging not just to the railway industry but to all other industries that depend on the railways.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if Nissan were to locate its motor car project in Wales, some hope for the future would be generated? Did the Minister read in The Sunday Times yesterday that Lord Marsh is advising Nissan? Has he met Lord Marsh, and will he make a statement about the Nissan plant at some date?

Mr. Edwards: I have no further information about the Nissan project. I have over the past few months met both the chairman and the deputy chairman of Nissan. The Government have made it clear that it is for the company to choose its location, and we do not yet know whether the company will go ahead with the project.

Mr. Coleman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for


Swansea, East(Mr. Anderson) will only confirm the public view of the disgraceful employment position in Wales? Will he use his influence with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry in asking him to reverse the decision made by the previous Secretary of State for Industry and restore regional aids, thereby possibly lowering unemployment to what it was when this Government came into office?

Mr. Edwards: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment about our decisions, but I also point out that last year alone the Welsh Development Agency completed more factories than it had built in the three years up to 1979, and it is likely to do the same thing this year. What is more, a record number of those factories were allocated in the past 12 months.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the progress made so far with the sale of council houses to sitting tenants in Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will not be satisfied until all public sector tenants in Wales who wish to exercise their right to buy, and qualify to do so under the Housing Act 1980, have been able to complete their purchases.

Mr. Knox: What percentage of all applicants have received offer notices so far?

Mr. Roberts: Some 49 per cent. of applicants have received offer notices. My right hon. Friend and I wrote to local authorities asking them to ensure that all those who had applied to buy their homes before 3 April 1981 should have had an offer notice by the end of last year, and much progress has been made in that direction.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Has the Minister noticed that all his Conservative colleagues have tabled questions relating to the sale of council houses? Does that mean that the Conservative Party and the Welsh Office now regard that as the most important issue facing Wales? Is not the most important issue the fact that Wales is faced with catastrophic unemployment, the like of which has not been seen in Britain for 50 years?

Mr. Roberts: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not regard the interest of the 13 per cent. of Welsh council tenants—38,621 people—who have applied for the right to buy their homes as of great importance, which my hon. Friends clearly do.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. loan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recent unemployment figures for Wales, Mid-Glamorgan and Aberdare; and what percentage increase this represents over May 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 14 January 1982 the figures were 176,180, 34,009, and 3,991 respectively, which represented increases of 112.3 per cent., 119.8 per cent., and 103.5 per cent. respectively over May 1979.

Mr. Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the long-term decline of British industry has accelerated while the Government have been in office, and that their deflationary policies have further damaged the level of

investment in British industry? Will he use his good offices in the Cabinet to ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces a Budget to help solve the employment problem, rather than one to harm it, as every Conservative Budget has done?

Mr. Edwards: The long-term problems of Britain and industry have come home to roost while the Government have been in office. However, it is not this Government's actions that have caused that, but the neglect of many problems for many years. It is an expression of my concern to remedy the position in Wales that I have authorised the Welsh Development Agency to announce today its sixth programme. It will primarily be concentrated on Mid-Glamorgan, Gwynedd, Dyfed and Clwyd—areas outside steel closure areas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that a major part of that programme—90,000 sq. ft.—will be carried out in his constituency.

Mr. Hooson: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the estimate given recently by Mr. Ivor Richard on BBC Radio Wales that 50,000 Welsh jobs will disappear if the Labour Party succeeds in pulling Britain out of the EEC?

Mr. Edwards: It is clear that a large part of the overseas investment that is so important to the Welsh economy has, on the admission of the companies concerned, come to Britain to enter the European market. Many of those responsible for such companies have said that if Britain pulls out of Europe that would prejudice their companies and further inward investment.

Mr. Alec Jones: If the Secretary of State wishes to give that side of the argument about membership of the EEC, would it not be honest if he told the House about the large numbers of jobs that have been lost in Wales as a direct consequence of Britain's membership? I draw his attention——

Mr. Garel-Jones: What about the EEC?

Mr. Jones: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who likes to intervene from a sedentary position, to the fact that the Hoover factory had intended to supply washing machines to the Common Market, but to date it has not manufactured one screw.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Hoover company would have had to overcome European competition, whether or not Britain had been a member of the EEC. Britain's membership gives Hoover the right of access to European markets on equal terms. If it provides its goods at the right price, quality and time, it can exploit that market.

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales have been without a job for (a) six months and (b) 12 months; what is the percentage rise in both figures since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 8 October 1981, the latest date for which figures are available, 86,754 people had been unemployed for more than six months, of whom 50,078 had been unemployed for more than 12 months. The increase since April 1979 is 117.7 per cent. and 119.8 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed that 87,000 Welsh people have been out of work for six


months or more? What hope can he give to those many thousands of middle-aged men, especially those in the steel areas, who have been made redundant and may not work again unless the Government's policies are radically changed?

Mr. Edwards: Clearly the best hope for such people is to attract new industry to Wales—an aim in which the Government have been remarkably successful during the past year, when almost 300 new Government factories have been allocated. I am glad that at least Clwyd county council appears to realise the attraction that that part of Wales and Wales generally offer new industry, as it acknowledges the 200 new firms that have moved to Clwyd during the past four years. It also draws attention to the fine motorway and other benefits, such as financial incentives, that are available to firms which take the sensible decision to move to Wales.

Mr. Wigley: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, does he accept that unemployment is appalling? The only short-term way to improvement is by an intensive capital investment programme. In those circumstances, why have the Government screwed down so hard the capital investment programme of local authorities, especially the county councils?

Mr. Edwards: I have just announced the result of the major capital programme of the Welsh Development Agency—which in one year has built more factories than the Labour Government built in three—and a record urban aid programme directed at local authorities to assist local authority projects, which shows the inaccuracy of the hon. Gentleman's point. In the presence of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I am especially glad to announce that as part of the urban aid programme, and through local authorities, the Government are giving substantial assistance to the industry department of University College, Cardiff, which is doing valuable work in developing new products and projects in South Wales.

Mr. Grist: I am delighted with that last piece of information from my right hon. Friend. Will he commiserate with the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), who clearly wishes Britain to remain within the EEC to obtain the Datsun factory either for his area or for Wales generally? Is it not amazing that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—both of whom were members of the Labour Government of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—are now so opposed to what they supported when in Government?

Mr. Edwards: Some of the views expressed by the Opposition are very odd, especially about projects that originate outside Britain. I know how pleased my hon. Friend will he with the important announcement today by the Chemical Bank—the sixth largest bank in the United States—to locate its back-room operations in Cardiff. That development will provide 350 jobs and will be of immense importance to the capital city, because it will lead the way to the commercial development that is so important to Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: The Opposition agree with the Secretary of State about the attractiveness of Wales for industry. Is he aware that our complaint is that we do not

have a Government who match up to the natural advantages of Wales? We have unemployment that is not only excessively high but excessively long-lasting. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the directors of social services, which outlines the increased deaths, increased admissions to psychiatric hospitals and the increased number of prison sentences, which are all social consequences likely to occur as a result of long-lasting and high unemployment?
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving financial assistance to the Association of Welsh Marriage Guidance Councils? It is asking the Welsh Office for help in an attempt to ameliorate some of the dreadful social consequences of the unemployment created by his Government?

Mr. Edwards: Once again I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a main objective of the urban programme is to help social projects and to meet social needs such as he described. This year's allocation of over £15 million—more than double the allocation during his period in office—is proof of our concern about the matter.

Llanwern Steelworks

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation concerning the Llanwern steelworks.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I last met the chairman in December 1981.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the public praise that the Secretary of State has given the workers of Llanwern for their efforts to improve efficiency and overall production in recent months, will he now urge upon his colleagues in the Cabinet and upon the chairman of the British Steel Corporation the need for major investment schemes at Llanwern, especially in the concast plant, so that he can streamline the steelmaking process and enable the works to keep abreast of its principal competitors?

Mr. Edwards: I need not urge that point too strongly on the chairman of the BSC, because at the weekend he went to South Wales to make a speech about the desirability of substantial investment such as that described by the hon. Gentleman. The Government are awaiting the final information about the corporate plan. When we receive it we shall consider what the chairman has to say.

Mr. Coleman: Does the Secretary of State agree that great efforts have been made in the South Wales steel plants, both at Llanwern and at Port Talbot, to reduce production costs, and that the cost of steel now produced there is equal to the best European standards? In view of those efforts, will he press for finance to be made available to facilitate the introduction of continuous casting in Llanwern so that the great efforts that have achieved so much success can be built upon, and the success of steelmaking in South Wales ensured?

Mr. Edwards: As I have just pointed out to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), we are awaiting the information that is required to complete our consideration of the corporate plan. Until we have that information and the chairman's proposals, I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's detailed suggestion. I have gone out of my


way to acknowledge the enormous improvement in productivity and performance at those plants. That improvement is likely to form the foundation for future strength and I welcome what the chairman of the BSC said on the subject at the weekend.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Denzil Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total increase since May 1979 in unemployment in the Llanelli employment area in percentage and numerical terms.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Between May 1979 and January 1982 unemployment in the Llanelli travel-to-work area increased by 4,018 or by 163.3 per cent.

Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that those figures show how far the Government's policies have almost destroyed the industrial base of the Llanelli constituency? Is he further aware that the Manpower Services Commission is proposing to make matters worse by closing the Llanelli skillcentre? Will he make it clear to the new chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, who I believe held the distinguished post of political adviser to the former Secretary of State for Industry, that the closure of the Llanelli skillcentre is unacceptable and intolerable?

Mr. Edwards: I am very concerned about the position in Llanelli and the sharp increase in unemployment, which was especially influenced by the Duport Steelworks Ltd. closure. That is why I announced a factory programme in the area that will cost about £8.5 million. I have also provided finance to accelerate the vital road link to the M4.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Manpower Services Commission is now consulting about the future of the skillcentre and the form that arrangements may take. I discussed the matter frequently with the present chairman and I shall do so again with the new chairman at the earliest opportunity. I understand the important work that the centre has done for many years. I could hardly fail to do so, as I am a Member of Parliament for a west Wales constituency and many of my constituents have used the centre.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Did the Secretary of State find time yesterday to read, in the central part of the business section of The Sunday Times, that industrial production in Britain had already peaked last autumn? What effect will that have upon unemployment in Llanelli in 1982?

Mr. Edwards: I did not have the pleasure of reading The Sunday Times at the weekend. Even if I had, I am not sure that I would necessarily have accepted its conclusion. I am more influenced by the increasing evidence of a sharp rise in the number of inquiries, the allocations of factories and the general investment in new projects in Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the Llanelli skillcentre may be one of the few matters on which Welsh Members on both sides of the House agree? Is he aware that it must be nonsense to consider closing the skillcentre —which was saved in 1980 when there were about 3,000 unemployed—when now there are 6,478 unemployed? I hope that the Secretary of State will do more than discuss the matter with the Manpower Services Commission—that he will do his best to lean heavily on it to keep the skillcentre open.

Mr. Edwards: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I made those points to the chairman in 1980 when the Manpower Services Commission first made the proposal and asked him to consider carefully the future of the centre. On that basis, the MSC decided to reconsider and review the position and consult after an interval. That is what it is now doing. It is important that that consultation should go forward, not just so that views such as those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman are clearly on the record, but that the proper use of the centre can be considered if there is a future for it. Those issues are being considered by the MSC now. I shall draw to the attention of the chairman and the new chairman the points made by right hon. and hon. Members in the House.

Council House Sales

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that local housing authorities spend the net proceeds of council house sales for housing purposes.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Decisions on the spending of the net proceeds from council house sales are a matter for individual local authorities, but the receipts present authorities with a fine opportunity to make a real impact on the housing needs of their areas. I hope that they will not fail to take full advantage of it.

Sir Anthony Meyer: How much money is available to local authorities? Is not a substantial sum now available to them which they could use for either house building or house repairs? Should not charges that they are being starved of money for that purpose be seen in that context?

Mr. Roberts: The amount about which we are talking is £33 million, which compares with total allocations of £97.8 million this year. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the inconsistency of authorities which complain of inadequate resources and yet have the possibility of obtaining resources from the sale of council houses. They can use that money—I hope that they do—to renew improvement grants and to pay the maximum permitted amount of grant.

Mr. loan Evans: What are the average net proceeds of the sale of a council house, and what is the cost to the local authority, the ratepayers and the tenants of replacing such a house?

Mr. Roberts: The average net proceeds are about £8,000. We have gone over the ground before. Of course it costs more to build a new house, but I must stress to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have advanced many schemes for low-cost home ownership. He could study them to advantage.

Mr. Garel-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many public sector tenants had completed the purchase of their homes by 31 December 1981 under the provisions of the Housing Act 1980; and what is his estimate of the current rate of completion of the sales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Full returns are not yet available, but I estimate that the total of completed sales will amount to 7,000 to 8,000 as at the end of December 1981, and that they will continue at a rate of not less than 3,000 to 4,000 per quarter.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figure given in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member


for Leek (Mr. Knox) of 49 per cent. of applicants having received offer notices is disgracefully low? Will he tell the House what steps he will take to get the figure moving in the right direction? Will he use some of the powers that he is given under the Act?

Mr. Roberts: I regret that I cannot agree that 49 per cent. is a disgracefully low figure. In fact, it is a very good percentage. However, of course we shall do everything within our power to increase it. We wrote to the local authorities in August asking them to send offer notices to those who had applied to buy their own homes before April 1981. When we see how many houses had been sold by the end of the last year, we shall consider sending further notices to local authorities, which will seek to ensure further completions.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: How long does it take the Welsh Office to reply to requests from local authorities on housing policy and sanctions? Is it as long as it took the Department to respond to a letter from Gwynedd county council, which it received last March and to which it was not able to reply until last week?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that local authorities have been inundated with applications by people who want to buy their council houses—38,000 is a substantial figure. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government gave the proposals in the memorandum from Gwynedd county council full consideration. We could not have had other than grave doubts about some of those proposals, because they affect the liberty of the subject. Some of those proposals might have resulted in penalties, which would have been much disliked. We do not believe that they would have been acceptable to the British public. Furthermore, some of the proposals would have hit at the value of existing properties in Wales.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are moving much too slowly.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Hudson Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in Wales; what is the percentage increase since May 1979; and what steps he is taking to deal with this situation.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On a seasonally adjusted basis the current figure is 162,000, a rise of 99.5 per cent. since May 1979. Government policy remains to strengthen and improve the competitiveness of the economy so as to ensure viable and lasting jobs.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Is the Secretary of State not aware that the measures, which he mentioned today, to try to create further employment in Wales are completely insignificant when set against the true scale of the problem, of which the real magnitude is reflected in the fact that in Mid-Glamorgan there are 621 vacancies, while the number of unemployed there stands at 34,009? When will he realise that unemployment is a real problem in Wales? When will he pull his finger out and do something substantial about it?

Mr. Edwards: I am doing something about it. A large proportion of the latest WDA programme is devoted to Mid-Glamorgan. It would be interesting to know what the hon. Gentleman would do about it. I noticed that on the only major occasion when there was an opportunity for his new alliance to express its views on employment matters,

two of his colleagues from Wales voted with the Government, the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) voted against them and, characteristically, the hon. Gentleman was careful not to record his views.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, from the figures that he has announced, he is taking this country and Wales on a Freddie Laker flight to disaster? Does he not appreciate that we need a "Concorde" effort to put right the Welsh economy, not a two-hour helicopter flight?

Mr. Edwards: More than anything else, what will put the economy to rights is the improved competitiveness of British industry, about which we rightly spoke when referring to the British Steel Corporation. Because of the recognition of the advantages of investing in Wales many outside companies are choosing to do so. That is why we are pleased to welcome a major commercial development in Wales today.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the factors operating against increased employment in Wales is the crushing burden of industrial rates on businesses? Is he further aware that there will be a general welcome for the courage that he has shown in putting a limit on industrial rates, even at the cost of an increase in domestic rates? Will he consider whether the "socially delightful party" is prepared to face such hard choices or has given any evidence of its readiness to do so?

Mr. Edwards: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. It is right that the rate support settlement for Wales this year has been reasonable and good. That has been recognised by local government in Wales, which has seen that if it follows responsible policies and controls its current expenditure it will get a good settlement and extra capital spending. It is right, against that background, to have switched resources from the domestic to the industrial ratepayer at this critical moment.

Mr. James Callaghan: While we welcome the crumbs of comfort that the Secretary of State has offered today, including the new Chemical Bank in Cardiff, is it his assessment, at the end of this series of questions on unemployment, that there is no prospect of any substantial reduction in unemployment in Wales during the reasonable future?

Mr. Edwards: I never make forecasts about unemployment. It is clear that there are signs that the economy is now moving out of recession. I cannot tell how long it will be before unemployment levels out and starts to fall. To speak of some of the measures and new investment that I have described as crumbs of comfort, particularly on a day when 350 jobs have been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, is slightly understating what we are achieving during this difficult period.

Development Board for Rural Wales

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 22 December 1981, when I was able to discuss the board's proposals for expenditure and plans for the coming year.

Mr. Hooson: Will my right hon. Friend give assurances that, prior to any downgrading of regional aid in Mid-Wales for 1982, there will be a further review and that particular attention will be paid to the problems of industry in sparsely populated areas? Will consideration be given to enlarging the legal powers of the Development Board for Rural Wales to compensate for any downgrading?

Mr. Edwards: I confirm that that review will take place and that the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred will be carefully considered. There is no doubt that the DBRW is now carrying out valuable work. It is a sign of the attractiveness of Wales to industry that this January the DBRW allocated factories for about 17 new projects—over 100,000 sq ft. That represents nearly half the amount that was allocated in the whole of last year. That shows the way in which interest in Wales is continuing and accelerating.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State's review include upgrading as well as downgrading?

Mr. Edwards: I do not intend to add to what I said to my hon. Friend. We gave an undertaking that before the downgrading took effect we would review the position, which is exactly what we will do.

Welsh Water Authority

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek a meeting with the chairman of the Welsh water authority to discuss the cost of water to consumers in Wales for the coming year.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend met the chairman to discuss this matter on 29 January 1982.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that in the near future the Welsh water authority will levy an 18.3 per cent. increase in water bills for domestic consumers in Wales and that that increase is about double the level in parts of England? Will he confirm that as long ago as 15 October the Welsh water authority proposed to the Welsh Office higher charges for bulk water supply by Wales to the Severn-Trent area and that no answer has been given? Will he use the powers set out in schedule 4 to the Water Act 1973 to ensure that Wales receives proper recompense for the water that is used by the Severn-Trent area?

Mr. Roberts: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot confirm what the level of charges will be, because the Welsh water authority will meet tomorrow to decide the level of charges for 1982–83. The matter of charges for bulk transfers of water to the Severn-Trent and North-West water authorities has been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He will determine the questions concerned in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In view of the judicial position it would be improper for me to comment on matters relating to the merits of the dispute.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the Minister not know that the recommendation that is being considered by the water authority tomorrow recommends an average overall increase in water charges of 16 per cent. in Wales in the coming year, and that for domestic consumers it is 18.3 per cent.? Does he realise that, if the recommendation is accepted, the average domestic water bill in Wales will

rise to £79.76? Does he accept that if that recommendation is accepted, the gap between Welsh water bills and water bills in other parts of the United Kingdom will widen again? Does this not show the Government's folly and stupidity in abandoning the Water Charges Equalisation Act, which at least brought a benefit of £3 million to the Welsh water authority and to Welsh domestic consumers? When does he intend to——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members are being most unreasonable this afternoon. Both questions and answers have been of unreasonable length.

Mr. Roberts: I shall try to be brief in my reply, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that you appreciate that the questions are long. The reply to the right hon. Gentleman's point about equalisation, is that the amount involved was about £3 million, but he should bear in mind that the annual cost of the water authorities is about £150 million. Authorities must run their affairs so as to break even. There is a statutory duty upon them, and they will certainly not be encouraged, nor will charges be lessened, by the withholding of payment of charges proposed by Plaid Cymru.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that answer and the policy of the Government, I give notice that I shall attempt to raise this issue on the Adjournment.

Nursing and Midwifery

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the increase in nursing and midwifery staff in the National Health Service in Wales since May 1979.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: By the end of 1981 the number had increased by 2,538 or 10.9 per cent.

Mr. Grist: In view of his highly satisfactory answer, will my hon. Friend say what effect that has had on the waiting lists in the National Health Service?

Mr. Roberts: It has had a favourable effect in the sense that between June 1979 and June 1981 the number of outpatients on the waiting lists decreased by 2,959, and the list of in-patients decreased by 6,159. In-patient waiting lists in Wales are the lowest that they have been since the reorganisation of the National Health Service.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Will the Minister state whether there has been a corresponding increase in geriatric and psychogeriatric nursing in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: If the hon. Member will send me a detailed question on that matter, I shall endeavour to answer it.

Mr. Coleman: In view of that answer, will the Minister ensure that the increase that he has announced to the House today is continued by ensuring that the measly increase of 4 per cent. now on offer to nurses and midwives is revised upwards? Despite the settlement that may be arrived at this year, will the Minister add his weight to finding an agreed formula for devising future salary levels, so that these dedicated people do not find that they are left behind year after year?

Mr. Roberts: The Government are anxious to devise fair and just long term arrangements for nurses' pay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services


recently issued a paper outlining possible approaches to both sides of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley council. The Government's record on nurses' pay is good. It began with the 9 per cent. increase from April 1979, and was followed by the full Clegg award of 22 per cent., the reduction in the working week from 40 to 371/2 hours, a 14 per cent. increase in 1980, and a 6 per cent. increase in 1981.

Education and Youth Services

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the report prepared by Her Majesty's Inspectorate on the implications of expenditure policies on the education and youth services.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report, but will publish it when he does.

Mr. Thomas: Will the Minister confirm that his Department has published a report this week showing that in the fourth and fifth forms in Welsh secondary schools, one-quarter of the children—more in some areas—are absenting themselves? Will he explain what his Department intends to do to alter the curriculum in schools to ensure that those pupils respond to an education system which, at the moment, is clearly de-schooling them.

Mr. Roberts: The present truancy problem in Wales is considerable and is causing much concern. We are having talks with local education authorities about the development of the curriculum.

State Registered Nurses

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many vacancies there are currently for State registered nurses in each health authority area in Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: This is a matter for individual health authorities. Information about State registered nurse vacancies is not held centrally.

Mr. Powell: Is it not true that there has been an escalation of ill-health in Wales as a direct result of Government policies increasing unemployment and increasing the burdens on workers in Wales, thus increasing the burdens on the National Health Service in Wales? Will he give serious consideration to nurses and their pay? Is he aware that despite the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) earlier, their living standards have been substantially reduced, and that is why these angels of mercy are asking for better consideration from the Government than they have had in the past?

Mr. Roberts: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is any straightforward connection between the nation's state of health and the unemployment figures, although I know that reports have been produced on the subject. I have already said that there has been a considerable increase in the number of nurses. I have also said that the Government's record on nurses' pay is good and that we are concerned about long-term arrangements for nurses' pay and conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY Plessey Ltd.

Plessey Ltd.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what Government assistance has been given to Plessey Ltd. for the most recent convenient 10-year period.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): The assistance provided by the Department of Industry to Plessey Ltd. over the period 1971 to 1981 is £25 million.

Mr. Dalyell: Can we be given an assurance that the Department of Industry, the Scottish Economic Planning Council and the Scottish Development Agency will give every possible help to the phoenix that may arise from Plessey, Bathgate?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that responsibility for some aspects of the matter that he raises lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, I can tell him that the Scottish Development Agency is having discussions with both Plessey and the management group that is seeking to buy part of the Bathgate business from Plessey. The Scottish Office and the Department of Industry are ready to consider financial assistance to any viable operation that could preserve employment in Bathgate.

Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that Plessey Ltd. has been outstandingly successful, compared with many other firms that have received taxpayers' money?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Leicester

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the level of industrial investment in Leicester.

Mr. MacGregor: Information on the level of industrial investment in such specific areas as Leicester is riot available. However, the indications are that the Government's economic policies are succeeding in achieving increased productivity and better competitiveness and that there will be a general upturn in industrial investment during 1982.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that, unfortunately, there is no sign whatever of an upturn in industrial investment in Leicester, that unemployment has reached unparalleled levels, and that in one part of my constituency over half of the people are unemployed? Does he accept that it is vital that the Government recognise the problem? Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not, or he would not have made such a complacent statement about a city that was once so prosperous.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that in the economy as a whole there have been the improvements that I mentioned. He will also know that Leicester and the East Midlands have been eligible for considerable Government aid under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972. Indeed, £1 million assistance has been offered to 115 projects covering all industries in the Leicester area. I also draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the recent optimistic statements


of industrialists in his area, including that made at the annual general meeting of the Knitting Industries Federation. He will also know that the chief executive of the Leicester chamber of commerce has stated that the Leicester economy is now on the long road to recovery.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Arts Council (Grant)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) Official Report, 18 January, column 16, if he will list the organisations that have expressed appreciation of the increase in the Arts Council grant.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): There has been generally widespread appreciation of the grant settlement for the Arts Council for the coming year, both from the council itself and from many individuals.

Mrs. Short: While I appreciate the Minister's endeavours to improve support for the arts, may I ask him to bear in mind that large numbers of companies outside London are in great difficulty because their Arts Council grant has not kept pace with inflation? Is he aware that in towns such as Wolverhampton, where we are trying to reopen a theatre, the situation is especially difficult? Will he ensure that additional resources are given for such purposes?

Mr. Channon: I cannot say that I can find additional resources. All things being considered, the vast majority of people believe that the Arts Council has this year had a reasonable increase in its money. I shall willingly look into the question of Wolverhampton. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be good enough to write to me about it.

Mr. Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there will be increasing disapproval throughout the arts world if Arts Council appointments or dismissals—come to that—are made for political reasons? Does he appreciate the risks and damage that such a policy might introduce in the conduct of the arts in the hands of less responsible successors to the job than I?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman may be counting his chickens before they are hatched. I share his view. I should strongly deprecate such a practice were it to take place, but it has not. I have just appointed four new members of the Arts Council. I have not the faintest idea of their political views.

Mr. Jessel: As Arts Council money goes to support orchestras that play at the Royal Festival Hall, which thereby benefits indirectly, is my right hon. Friend aware of the reports of forthcoming concerts in aid of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which is not a charity but a political campaign, and which many of us profoundly believe will increase the dangers to our people? Will he invite the Arts Council to renew its vigilance to ensure that none of its money is used, even indirectly, to support such ends?

Mr. Channon: The Arts Council would be the first to wish not to support a political campaign, from whichever side of the House it may come. I have not seen the report, but I shall make immediate inquiries and be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous problems of the Haymarket and Phoenix theatres in Leicester? If I write to him about them will he afford the same courteous consideraton to Leicester's problems as he has kindly agreed to do to those of Wolverhampton?

Mr. Channon: I am always delighted to receive a letter from the hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he do something for me in return? Will he make sure that his city council does not discriminate against the arts in its decisions for the coming year?

Mr. Faulds: I welcome the four appointments that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but is he pretending that he is not aware of Dr. Richard Hoggart's political leanings?

Mr. Channon: Not until he broadcast them in the press.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the Arts Council grant for 1982–83 will be spent in the regions.

Mr. Channon: In recent years the Arts Council has allocated over 60 per cent. of its grants to support activities outside London. Grants to individual arts organisations for 1982–83 have not yet been announced, but the regional arts associations and touring as a whole will receive increases above that in the council's total grant-in-aid.

Mr. Butcher: May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue the support for regional arts associations and to ensure that we do not have an overbearing obsession with facilities in the metropolis but consider our humbler neighbours down the M1, such as Birmingham and Manchester?

Mr. Channon: I shall continue such regional support. The Arts Council is well aware of the need to do so. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the West Midlands Arts Council grants are increasing by about £80,000, which I hope will be some help.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that there are grave concerns in Manchester about the future of the Halle Orchestra? Will he assure us that he is concerned about the orchestra's future and about its local authority and Arts Council grants?

Mr. Channon: I am very concerned, having read the reports in the press. I hope that hon. Members will persuade local authorities not to discriminate against the arts in their distributions for the coming year. I have read reports that Manchester city is to withdraw entirely the grant from the Hallé Orchestra. Luckily, the overwhelming majority of the orchestra's money comes from the Arts Council and the metropolitan council. I very much hope that its activities will not be damaged.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware of the great consternation in the Northern region following his intervew on BBC North-East last week, when it was revealed that the Northern region is substantially worse off than many other regions, particularly in support from the Arts Council? Do not the areas of highest unemployment demand the highest cultural investment? Will he draw that fact to the attention of the Arts Council and ensure that the Northern region gets a greater proportion of what is available?

Mr. Channon: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is difficult to make that case. I am deeply aware of the strong support for the arts in the Northern region. Northern arts are getting a grant increase of about 141/2 per cent. Apart from Scotland and Wales, the Northern region probably has the highest proportion spent on the arts.

Arts Budget

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the size of the Government's arts budget expressed in absolute figures, as a percentage of total public expenditure and as a percentage of the gross national product.

Mr. Channon: Central Government expenditure on the arts amounted to £174 million in the financial year 1980–81, which is the latest year for which all the relevant figures are available. The relevant percentages were 0.2 and 0.1; I have no reason to believe they will be much different in the present year.

Mr. Jessel: As that is only about £3 per head per year or 1p per head per day for each person in the country, is it not extraordinarily good value in enriching the lives of the British people and attracting visitors, who produce revenue?

Mr. Channon: It most certainly is. I am sure that my hon. Friend was pleased to see that the Government recognised that, among other factors, when they announced their grants to the arts last year.

Mr. Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister for the Arts, not agree that that minute proportion of expenditure on the arts is simply not enough and not good enough?

Mr. Channon: In our private capacities I believe that we could both say that. I do not believe that the records of both our Governments have fluctuated much over the years. The Government recognise the need to continue to support the arts. That is why I was able to make the announcement that I did last December.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that at times, through the Arts Council, he might be enriching the lives of the rich by taxing the poor?

Mr. Channon: No. I do not believe that I would accept that. There is much evidence that it is a modest amount of money. There is an increasing audience for the arts from all sections of society. I hope very much that that trend will continue.

National Heritage Fund

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the trustees of the national heritage fund about its annual grant.

Mr. Channon: I am in regular contact with the fund, which I believe is doing a splendid job.

Mr. Greenway: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and others concerned with the fund on its success? May I also urge the Government to do all that they can to maintain their support for the fund in real terms? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can?

Mr. Channon: I shall do all that I can. I cannot give an absolute guarantee in a difficult time. I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the fund's work. I believe that that feeling is generally shared throughout the House.

Mr. Christopher Price: On an issue that has been put to the Minister before, does he agree that the fund should not be mean or narrow in its objectives and that all sorts of proposals such as railway viaducts—in particular Ribblehead—should qualify? What progress has been made on the proposal?

Mr. Channon: I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) about that matter. If I am allowed, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives the correspondence. It is for the board to make an approach to the trustees if it wishes.

Victoria and Albert and the Science Museums

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to receive the results of Sir Derek Rayner's scrutiny of the Victoria and Albert and the Science museums.

Mr. Channon: I expect the report about Easter.

Mr. Neubert: Is there not a case for thinking that the present structure of these two museums is outdated and that, as with other national museums, they should become trustee museums?

Mr. Channon: There certainly is a case for saying that. It is something that has been raised over many years under successive Governments. I should be very surprised if the report did not come to a recommendation, which I shall consider very carefully. I shall, of course, bear my hon. Friend's views in mind.

Mr. Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the report should recommend that the Victoria and Albert museum and the Science museum should be placed on the same trustee-administered basis as the other major national museums, there would be support in principle from the Labour Benches, but that we would be most concerned that he should carry the staffs with him in that operation?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. Should that issue arise, I will bear his points in mind. In a major change of this sort, the views of the staff would naturally be important.

FIRE SERVICE COLLEGE BOARD (ABOLITION) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,

That the Fire Service College Board (Abolition) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Cope.]

Defence

Sir Frederick Burden: I beg to move, That this House, although welcoming the Government's decision to maintain a strategic nuclear deterrent when Polaris reaches the end of its useful life, is gravely concerned at the rigid constraints and lack of flexibility being imposed upon the Ministry of Defence, which are leading to a dramatic reduction in the Royal Navy's surface fleet, a lack of capacity to refit submarines, unacceptable shortfalls in the number of Royal Air Force front-line aircraft, and excessive planned reductions in the three services' personnel and their essential civilian support, all at a time when the threat facing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation alliance has never been greater.
The motion is intended to allow a wide-ranging discussion on defence, because this is the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss this vital subject since last July when the White Paper "The Way Forward" was debated. I stated my concern at that time about our defence policy. My views have not changed, and I am sure that those of my right hon.-and hon. Friends who are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and who speak with knowledge and authority on defence, will express strong misgivings about the way in which the policy is developing.
The Conservative manifesto for the last election stated:
We shall only be able to decide on the proper level of defence spending after consultation in government with the Chiefs of Staff and our allies. But it is already obvious that significant increases will be necessary.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) became Secretary of State for Defence, one of his first tasks was to obtain an appraisal, through the Chiefs of Staff, of the strength of any potential enemy and, through our planners, of the forces that were deemed to be necessary in war to protect ourselves and honour our alliance obligations.
I am convinced that that study was carried out. As evidence of that I remind the House that when my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) was Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy he carried out an in-depth review of the support services necessary to maintain the composition and size of the fleet that the planners envisaged in peace and regarded as essential in war.
The Royal dockyards' role had to be a major object of consideration in any such study, for they alone, as my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence admitted, are capable of carrying out the repair and refitting of naval vessels. My right hon. Friend issued a statement in August 1980 confirming that the four United Kingdom Royal naval dockyards would be required and maintained and that there was more than sufficient work to keep them fully occupied in the foreseeable future.
After only a comparatively short time in office—10 months—my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State issued a White Paper, "The United Kingdom Defence Programme; The Way Forward", the first paragraph of which states:
The first duty of any British Government is to safeguard our people in peace and freedom. In today's world that cannot be done without a major defence effort. The international scene is in several areas unsettled and even turbulent.…Soviet miliary power, already massive, continues to grow in size, quality and reach, and the Soviet leaders continue to demonstrate their readiness to use it brutally. The North Atlantic Alliance remains vital to us, and neither its strength nor its cohesion can be maintained without our crucial contribution. This is at the top of the Government's priorities.


Well said! That situation was considered by the Chiefs of Staff and planners when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire was at the Department. It was then decided that the Royal Navy must be of such a size and diversity that it would require the full support services of all our Royal dockyards. However, despite his admission that Soviet military power continues to
grow in size, quality and reach",
my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Defence makes large cuts in our defence capability.
I shall leave it to others to express their views on the situation now facing the Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force. Hon. Members will not be surprised if I confine myself to comments on the Royal Navy.
Since Chatham dockyard was founded by Queen Elizabeth I in what is now my constituency, the area has maintained a unique and outstanding record of service to the Navy. The dockyard has built more than 500 naval vessels, including the "Victory", and has risen magnificantly to the task of refitting our fighting ships in peace and war.
In an interview last October, which was published early this year in the Swiss-owned publication International Defence Review, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said:
I would rather have 100 escorts, frigates and destroyers, than 50. … I would rather have 500, but the only way in which we could have kept the frigate and destroyer numbers up would have been by sustaining the dockyards.
In other words, it is the number of dockyards and not the number of ships that are paramount in considering the nation's need for security.
In support of his dockyard closure plans my right hon. Friend claimed in the same interview:
Such a closure programme has universal agreement in NATO.
He went on to say that the alliance's most senior admiral reported that the dockyard capacity was excessive. He declined to name that admiral beyond saying that "he was not British".
Paragraph 26 of the White Paper states:
Our most powerful vessels for maritime war are our nuclear-propelled attack submarines (SSNs), soon to be equipped with the anti-surface ship-guided missile Sub-Harpoon".
The importance of such weapons to our naval defence capability was emphasised by Rear Admiral J. R. Hill—a serving officer—in his book "The Royal Navy Today and Tomorrow", written after the publication of the defence White Paper, in which he said:
but the fleet submarine—the SSN—is probably the unit of the Royal Navy above all others that gives Soviet tacticians and planners the most problems.
Yet in paragraph 40 of the same White Paper my right hon. Friend announced the shutdown of Chatham dockyard. That included the closure of an efficent and tested nuclear refitting and refuelling facility for these submarines, and the transfer of responsibility for their future serviceability to Devonport, which so far has not completed even one refuelling and refit operation.
When he appeared before the Select Committee on Defence, Admiral Pillar, who was then in charge of fleet support operations, reiterated several times that to place the obligation of refuelling and refitting fleet submarines entirely on Devonport would be fraught with risk. All the evidence that I can obtain—much has been made available to me—leaves me convinced that, even if there is a tremendous improvement in productivity, Devonport will not be able to deal effectively with the servicing of fleet

submarines to ensure that the necessary number will always be operational. That would apply even in peacetime. Under war conditions, when some fleet submarines would inevitably suffer damage and add to the work load, Devonport could not possibly cope—leaving aside entirely the possibility, always present, that damage could arise to the base itself.
After visiting Chatham on Monday last week my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that the complete support programme for fleet submarines at Devonport would be "easy". No evidence is available to support such optimism. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but some of my hon. Friends and I saw his words quoted on the Tape in the House. My hon. Friend also stated that no decision had been reached on the future of HMS "Dreadnought". At 8.20 am last Thursday he telephoned me to tell me that later that day he would announce that "Dreadnought" was to be decommissioned at Chatham with the loss of several hundred jobs in the yard in the spring of 1983—some time earlier than had been expected.
"Dreadnought" was towed from Faslane in Scotland to Devonport late in 1980 or early in 1981. From there she was towed to Chatham and has remained there since last October. I cannot help wondering whether the decision last Thursday was influenced by the debate that is now taking place. Why was "Dreadnought" brought to Chatham if the only purpose was to carry out what is in effect a scrapping job? Why could that not be done at Devonport? It would have been a useful exercise. Above all, what would several hundred men have been doing if "Dreadnought" had not been at Chatham? How can work on her mean that the men will lose their jobs earlier than would have been the case if she had not been there? That is the implication of what the Minister has stated in a letter. What task would those men have been allocated to delay redundancy?
In an interview that he gave when he visited the dockyard and published the following day in the Kent Evening Post—I give the name of the newspaper in case he wishes to refer to it—my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is reported as saying that the decision to close the dockyard was taken because Britain could not maintain full stocks of weapons and ammunition. He was reported to have said:
There was not sufficient ammunition or war stock, so we had to take a critical look at defence expenditure. We knew we would not be popular taking this decision but it is our duty to provide this country with an adequate defence and deter war.
If my hon. Friend made such a statement, or anything resembling it, his reason for doing so is beyond my comprehension. It is an unacceptable reason for closing Chatham dockyard and imposing massive cuts at Portsmouth.
Whatever the defence argument against such a policy, it would appear that the Secretary of State is still hell-bent on carrying out his cuts and closures. The 
closure of Chatham dockyard will mean a loss of 7,000 jobs. All those affected are Government employees. It is extremely unlikely that more than 1,000 of them will be given the opportunity to transfer to Devonport or Rosyth, even if they wish to go.
I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland refer in the House to the closure of the aluminium smelting plant at Invergordon as a disaster. The subject that we are discussing is no less of a disaster for the constituency that I represent. The disaster at Invergordon was imposed by a private company. The disaster of 7,000


job losses at Chatham will be imposed by the Government. Above all, the closure will put at great risk—I use the words deliberately—our ability to service and maintain the necessary number of fleet submarines operationally. These submarines, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, are essential for our naval defence. If that were not enough, the Government have said that the number of destroyers and frigates is to be cut to 42, although eight will remain in reserve. The uniformed manpower of the Royal Navy is to be reduced by 10,000 by 1986. There will be a further reduction of 10 in the number of destroyers and frigates at the end of the decade.
After the autumn NATO exercise "Ocean Safari", Admiral Cox emphasised that defeating enemy submarines could not be done by aircraft or nuclear submarines alone
contrary to some suggestions made in London.
Is it not also true that the Supreme Allied Commander, Admiral Harry Train, has told the Government that he would be prepared to accept the reduced effectiveness of some British escorts as a consequence of abandoning modernisation if only the overall number of ships could be retained? I should like to know the answer. There is an awful lot of sense in what Admiral Train says. One recalls the vital part played by obsolescent American destroyers in maintaining the freedom of the seas for us in the last war. They were not new vessels, but they were vital for escort duties.
The defence White Paper states that the reason for abandoning the modernisation of the Leander frigates was that the cost of about £70 million was 
more than the target cost for the new Type 23 design.
I put down a question asking how many Leanders had been refitted at a cost of £70 million or more. I was told that none had so far been refitted. The cost was an assumption of what might arise in the future.
The Type 23 mentioned in the White Paper is still, I understand, at the design stage. The prototype cannot be commissioned until 1988 at the earliest. Is it still the belief that it will cost no more than about £70 million now that the design study has been placed calling for a sophisticated ship? Hon. Members would be grateful to hear the answer. The White Paper asserts that the Type 23 will be
framed with an eye to the export market".
Is there any overseas interest? Have any potential markets been indentified and sounded?
We are now told that the aircraft carrier "Invincible" is to be sold to the Australians. I know that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) comes from Australia. Perhaps that has influenced the agreement that "Invincible" should be sold to them. In his book, Rear-Admiral Hill says of "Invincible", which was commissioned in 1980:
The Invincible is most definitely a fighting ship. There is a great deal of built in toughness in protection against nuclear and chemical contamination, in damage and watertight integrity, as well as offensive and sea capability: she is not a ship that any opponent could brush aside, and could be ignored only at his Peril.
He continues by saying that her
reach extends far beyond herself, not only in her aircraft, but in her capacity for command and control".
As Rear Admiral Hill says, Invincible was long in gestation. I believe, as I am sure the Chiefs of Staff believe, that she should remain as a vital part of our surface forces. I am sure that it is wrong to dispose of her. How much did she cost? For how much are we selling her?

How much would a replacement with the same capabilities now cost? If the sale has not been confirmed, it must be stopped. If the Australians want an aircraft carrier, why should we not sell them "Hermes"? Although she is 20 years old, she was refitted last year. Why do we not keep "Invincible"?
I return to the necessity in time of war—regrettably, that is the ultimate test of the effectiveness of the Royal Navy—for the Navy to have adequate support services, and none will be more essential than the dockyards. I am convinced that in high intensity naval operations the elimination of Chatham and the heavy cuts at Portsmouth will put our naval response to an enemy at grave risk.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will not be moved on any other ground to think again and reverse his decision to close Chatham, especially the nuclear element, I urge him to do so to ensure beyond any doubt that there will be sufficient support facility to keep the maximum number of fleet submarines, which he believes are so important, always operational. I am convinced that Devonport alone cannot be relied upon absolutely to do so, even with the present 12 submarines. With an additional five, it would undoubtedly fail dismally.
We must have the nuclear deterrent, but I am convinced that to use its possession as an excuse greatly to reduce the Royal Navy could be disastrous. That danger will increase if the entire cost of Trident continues to be borne out of the Navy's share of the Defence Vote instead of being spread across the whole defence budget, as is the case with Polaris.
There is no doubt that Soviet military power poses a great threat to Britain and our NATO Allies. Successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have recognised that threat. It is certainly as great now, if not greater than it has ever been. In a speech at Somerville College, Oxford, on 4 July 1981 Lord Home said:
If the Western democracies are not to become 'political aims' of the Soviet Union, then we have to arm ourselves sufficiently in both the nuclear and conventional fields to deter attack.
That warning must not be ignored.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the debate will end at 7 o'clock. There is a long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak. They can be called only if speeches are brief.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) for giving us yet another opportunity to debate defence matters. As time is short, I shall be brief so that others may contribute to the debate.
Today is the fortieth anniversary of the fall of Singapore—the greatest defeat in this country's history. People lay the blame in every direction except where it should lie. Some say that it was the fault of the men on the battlefield, other that it was the fault of the commanders on the spot. In fact, responsibility for the fall of Singapore lay with those who occupied the Conservative Benches in the 1930s, and it is no use making any other excuses.
I had hoped that when my previous party, the Labour Party, ceased to be in Government the Conservatives


would pursue at least one policy with which I could agree, that of giving priority to the defence of this country. Sadly, however, although the Conservatives make all the right noises when in Opposition, when in Government they use every possible excuse to do exactly what they did in the 1930s and—I say this deliberately—in many cases help to betray this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I thought that that would make Conservative Members, who perhaps intend to attack their own Government, a little uncomfortable. However, we are here not to make party political speeches but to consider what we believe is required for the defence of this country.
I should be much happier about the notion that we can get rid of so many naval vessels and yet complete the same task far more cheaply if it did not come at the same time as the proposed defence cuts in particular Services. I appreciate that the overall spending will be greater, but it is not overall spending that makes the Armed Services. It is whether the forces are in the proper proportion for future requirements. When I last spoke on these matters I paid tribute to the Government because, perhaps for the first time in the history of this country, the question of proportion was being considered. If cuts are required, we do not simply impose one-third upon each of the forces. The Conservatives have adopted a more reasonable system in deciding on which forces the cuts should fall. That is to the Government's credit.
I cannot for the life of me believe that it makes any sense to cut spending only on our naval forces at the very time when the greatest threat from the Soviet Union is in the naval sphere. At one time we had a trip-wire defence policy, under which it was intended that we should fire nuclear weapons. If we are to return to that policy, let us be realistic about it. At that time, however, an attack from the East would have had to come overland and not by sea.
The situation is different today. There is now the realisation that the Soviet Fleet is probably equal to those of all the Western forces. Indeed, in terms of submarine capacity, it is probably well ahead. Only a few months ago I said in the House that Britain faced the possibility of being starved by the cutting of our sea routes by Soviet naval vessels, without the Soviets having to move any troops or aircraft. Expenditure on the Navy has been cut because the Government decided that the nuclear deterrent must take priority. That is the real reason. I shall not cross swords with right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches on the need for a nuclear deterrent, but we know that the present deterrent is capable of taking us into the middle of the next decade.
What makes us so certain that we should put all our eggs into one basket by going for Trident? I disagree with some of my hon. Friends, who say categorically "No Trident". I do not say that. My argument is that I am not convinced that that is the best way of spending our money. Why put all our eggs into one basket for something in the future when there may be the possibility of continuing to update the Polaris system?
We keep an independent nuclear deterrent—and I hope that this is one of the reasons for keeping it—so that if ever an emergency arose, despite our American alliance, we would be capable at least of saying something on behalf of Britain. That is not to disparage our American allies. I have worked with them during the War and in peacetime, and I have a tremendous respect for them, but I never want Britain to be put in the position that, if the American Fleet

were not prepared to convoy our ships through to our shores, we would have no alternative but to give in to the Eastern bloc. That could happen.
Therefore, first let us make certain that we are capable of defending our sea routes without the American Fleet. I know that we could not do that indefinitely, but in an emergency—perhaps when no troops have been involved in Europe and no war has started and when the Americans might believe that to come in at that juncture would lay America open to inter-continental missiles—Britain would be left on its own. Would Britain fire Trident in such circumstances?
Not only is the present policy misplaced, but the main argument for a nuclear deterrent is being lost. We are losing that argument in the hearts and minds of the people. We are not defeating the argument that every person can be killed one hundred times over, so there is no reason to go on spending more money. What the people must be told is that it does not matter how many nuclear weapons a country possesses if that country is not capable of getting them to the target. If that is the case, one might as well get rid of the lot of them. That is why the expenditure is required on advanced means of delivery.
Those of us who were in North Africa during the war will know that we had plenty of tanks with 2-lb anti-tank guns, but they did not have much place in the battles against the Afrika Korps, whose tanks could stand back and shoot at our tanks with 6-lb guns. Numbers do not count. What is important is the ability to get the projectile to the target. We are losing the argument, and it is important to win the argument in the hearts and minds of the people, particularly the younger generation.
Those who believe that we need armaments are a dying race. Only members of the older generation, who have seen what happens when one does not have armaments, are convinced. It is understandable that younger people, who have never lived through a war, do not appreciate what happens to people when they are subjected to Nazi-type rule, as so many countries on the Continent were during the war.
The price of maintaining those freedoms can he high. It is important that we explain to our people that it might be expensive to provide the means of protecting those freedoms but that that is not as expensive as the cost of having to regain them once they are lost.

Mr. Julian AmeryPavillion): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) will agree that, whatever individual views we have about how the defence budget should be apportioned, the preservation of peace and security cannot be constrained within cash limits.
Mr. Lloyd George once said that a Back Bencher should make only one point in a speech if possible. I shall try to follow his advice. I wish to discuss the future of HMS "Endurance". Britain has had a long and distinguished association with the Antarctic continent. The names of Scott and Shackleton are still in the minds of today's schoolchildren. Not only did they go on voyages of discovery, but they staked out claims to portions of that great and still unknown continent. To strike a personal note, my father drew some boundaries and I believe that there still is a Cape Amery somewhere in that region. I remember seeing my mother launch "Discovery II", a forerunner of the "Endurance." These claims have never


been abandoned, though they are frozen in the Antarctica treaty to which we and 12 other nations are signatories. That treaty is to be reviewed in due course. The treaty covers the still dimly discerned economic and strategic interests of the Antarctic continent.
According to the maximum Treasury calculation, which includes, a percentage of the wages of every typist, dockyard worker and telephonist, all the way to Whitehall, the cost of the "Endurance" is about £3 million a year. The real cost is much less. But the cost effectiveness is a relative concept. When that fellow, Christopher Columbus, set out across the Atlantic, plenty of Treasury and Ministry of Defence officials in Lisbon and Madrid asked whether it was really worthwhile. Yet within a generation the recovery of Europe had begun because of the wealth he had discovered.
There is much talk today of space fiction. We must consider not only that but the very real impact that space discoveries can have on defence. Is it so foolish to think that the resources of the Antarctic and its strategic importance should not escape the purview of the House? We do not know the Antarctic's economic resources, but we do know that there is plenty of coal and possibly oil under the permafrost. There might be other important resources about which we do not know very much. We would be foolish to ignore them. Let us face it—it will be easier to get at the resources there than in outer space.
We should also think a little about the strategic aspect. It is often forgotten that in 1942 the Royal Navy landed a group on the Antarctic continent. It was called "Operation Tabarin" after the French casino, Bal Tabarin," with which I am sure the Minister was familiar.
Twenty or 30 Royal Navy personnel tried to ensure that the Germans did not get there because of the damage that they might have done.
We often consider the importance of the routes from the Soviet Union to the Atlantic by the northern passage. What about the southern passage? What about the threat that could develop to New Zealand, Australia, South Africa or South America if hostile bases were established in Antarctica, opposite the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn?
We should, of course, like to see the Antarctic developed for the whole of mankind—that is the idea behind the Antarctica treaty. But there is no certainty that that will happen. There may well be confrontation over resources and bases in the increasingly cold war climate in which we live. There may be some pretty hard bargaining ahead and I should have thought that it was important that we had a say in that.
There is the British interest and that of the Falkland Islands, which must not be overlooked. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and I served in the Foreign Office together. Although the Foreign Office is no doubt perfectly sincere about not wanting to do anything that would be contrary to the wishes of the Falkland Islanders, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that the Foreign Office would be delighted to get rid of the problem if it could do so. For my part I would do everything that I could, for Britain's sake, to discourage the Falkland Islanders from joining the Argentine. There may be untold wealth under the seas and the permafrost of Antarctica. Although today the Falkland Islands may seem to be a happy little community of sheep

farmers, tomorrow it could be what Aberdeen is to the North Sea. It could be the base from which a good deal of the development of the Antarctic could take place; a base to which we have a sure title; and a base for areas in the Antarctic continent to which we have a pretty strong title as well.
Strategy and diplomacy do not depend entirely on the total power that a country can mobilise. They depend on the power and influence that can be exercised at the crucial point. HMS "Endurance" represents the influence and power that Britain can exercise at what may well prove to be that crucial point. I ask my hon. Friend not to forget the importance of the old French saying "The absent are always wrong".

Mr. Stanley Newens: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) for providing the opportunity to discuss some of the most basic aspects of the Government's defence policy. I hasten to add that I am unable to go along with all that he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said. I am, however, deeply concerned, with the hon. Member for Gillingham, about the plight of his constituents who face redundancy. The House must address itself to that problem, along with that of the many other unemployed people in Britain today.
In his motion, the hon. Member for Gillingham welcomes the Government's decision to maintain a strategic weapon after Polaris, but is "gravely concerned" at the
constraints and lack of flexibility" that that will impose on defence policy.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he adhered to the Trident commitment. However, he wished to retain the conventional and naval commitment that he had pressed for, and that would require the continuation of our naval dockyards. If I understood him correctly, both will require heavy additional expenditure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will face up to such consequences.

Sir Frederick Burden: I did not specifically refer to Trident. I said that if Trident were chosen the cost should be spread over the whole defence budget. We need a nuclear weapon, although I do not know whether that weapon is Trident.

Mr. Newens: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has shown some uncertainty about the best type of nuclear deterrent. Conservative Members must make their position absolutely clear. It is no good tabling such motions unless they do so. The Secretary of State must soon announce whether the Government will buy the C4 Trident missile, as originally envisaged in the announcement in July 1980, or whether they will recommend the D5 version, which is more powerful and expensive.
In reality, the Secretary of State has little choice, as President Reagan has already chosen to introduce the D5. The right hon. Gentleman will not risk ordering a system that the United States of America will have discarded before it can come into service in Britain. However, if the right hon. Gentleman opts for the D5, the cost will rise from the original estimate of £5,000 million for the C4 at 1980 prices—which has been raised by inflation and the recalculation of estimates to perhaps £7,000 million or £8,000 million—to astronomical proportions. Many of us would like to know exactly what is proposed. The hon.


Member for Gillingham must tell us how he proposes to finance the naval commitment that he advocates and the deterrent that the Government desire. If he cannot do that, he must agree with me and reject Trident.
Much of Trident's cost will be incurred in the future and the present burden is not great. However, an increased conventional commitment will also involve heavy costs in a few years' time. Therefore, if we are to go ahead with Trident and the conventional naval commitment advocated by the hon. Member for Gillingham, the Government will have to plan for an even steeper and more accelerated increase in the military budget than at present.
Command No. 8288, "The United Kingdom Defence Programme: The Way Forward" recognises
a heavy burden on the British people".
Some Conservative right hon. and hon. Members are proposing more.
Expenditure in 1981–82 will be £12,300 million, representing 5.2 per cent. of gross national product. This is scheduled to grow by 3 per cent. per annum in 1982–83, 3 per cent. in 1983–84, 3 per cent. in 1984–85 and 3 per cent. again in 1985–86. The Government wish the provision for 1985–86 to be some 21 per cent. higher in real terms than actual defence expenditure was in 1978–79. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's motion—unless he agrees that Trident should be axed—is that expenditure should be considerably more than 21 per cent. higher by 1985–86 than the real expenditure in 1978–79.
Amongst other things, the Government are already committed to Nimrod, to doubling the air-to-air missiles, to providing a further 36 Hawk aircraft and to retaining the two Phantom squadrons. BAOR will require to be re-equipped with tanks and anti-tank missiles. The Tornado aircraft programme has already cost £10,000 million. The nuclear-powered attack submarines are to be increased from 12 to 17 by 1990. Many other costs will have to be taken on board if the Government's programme is to be carried out.
If Britain tries to continue with the Trident programme and throws off the constraints to which the hon. Gentleman's motion objects, the total burden imposed by way of defence expenditure will be even more unrealistic and insupportable.
I was not clear as to the policy of the Social Democratic Party when I listened to the hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). I understood that his party wished to get rid of Trident, but from what the hon. Member said it appears that he does not go along with that point of view. He is not dissenting even now.

Mr. Crawshaw: There is a difference between saying that we are having nothing to do with Trident and saying, as I say, that I am not convinced that there is not a reasonable alternative.

Mr. Newens: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear his position. I believe that I am correct in saying that he differs from the position of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who has said that we should get rid of it completely. Therefore, it should be recognised that the Social Democratic Party is, as on other issues, divided on the polices that it is advocating. I have never concealed my policies.
To return to the point that I was making about heavy defence spending, if we consider defence expenditure in the United States, which will amount to $215,000 million or £113,000 million, a record peace-time budget, we see

that that has led to the postulation of a huge budgetary deficit. Undoubtedly the price will be paid, given the monetarist economic regime, in higher and ever higher interest rates which will plunge the world deeper and deeper into depression.
Only eight weeks after the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the public expenditure plans for 1982–83 he had to provide an additional £1,250 million from the contingency reserve for spending programmes. If the British Government seek to accede to the views of those who want the strategic nuclear capability provided by Trident and the increased conventional commitment they will be driving us further along the road to economic ruin.
Even if we could afford Trident, I would argue—if I were an advocate of the nuclear deterrent, which I am not—that the Trident system has a range of 6,000 miles which is totally unnecessary. In addition, the accuracy and the power of the missiles to penetrate silos make it suitable as a first-strike weapon, while the arguments advanced in favour of Trident are for a second-strike weapon. So we are laying out huge unnecessary expenditure if we accept the arguments that are advanced from the Government Front Bench.
I am aware that the case has been advanced for alternative deterrents. Some hon. Members have talked of cruise missiles based on submarines or surface ships but I do not believe that those ideas are starters. Even if they were, they would not make agreement on arms limitation any less tortuous than it is, to put it mildly.
There is an unaswerable military and economic case for Britain to opt out of the nuclear club and maintain instead an efficient conventionally armed force which would be adequate for our defence without threatening economic collapse, which will happen if we carry on as we are doing. Within that conventional defence, it would be necessary to have adequate naval forces. The hon. Member for Gillingham and his hon. Friends ought to address themselves carefully to providing for the defence of the country what is within our economic capacity. Sooner or later we must all face up to the strategic as well as the economic realities of the arguments that I have been seeking to advance.
I note that only last week the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), warned, as reported in The Times, at an international conference held by the Western European Union that the Western European allies might no longer be able to afford the most modern advanced equipment tailor-made for their own troops. He was drawing attention to the escalating costs and urging the need for Europe to maintain a strong industrial base. His statement indicates that the realities are penetrating even to the regions of the Government Front Bench. We need desperately to reduce defence expenditure considerably. To achieve this, we should renounce nuclear weapons and refuse to go ahead with the nonsensical Trident commitment.
The hon. Member for Gillingham has to some extent put the Government on the spot to make clear their intentions. I hope that he will press his motion to a vote so that we may see where his hon. Friends stand on this issue. It is not sufficient to table a motion and not to support it in a Division.
Do the Government and their supporters want increased military expenditure to maintain the Trident system or are they prepared to end the Trident commitment to maintain


what the hon. Member for Gillingham has described as an "adequate" fleet? It is not enough merely to react against dockyard closures, dreadful as those are. We must formulate viable alternative defence and economic policies. The only defence and economic policy that can be described in that way will involve us in ending the Trident commitment. That is the issue that must be faced by Conservative Members who have been concerned about the reduction in the fleet. They will face it in a few years' time if they refuse to face it now.

Sir Patrick Wall: It was predictable that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) would talk about Trident. I shall not take up his remarks at any length. I merely say that we are talking about the 1990s. He was honest enough to say that not much money would be spent on Trident in the immediate future. I think that about £80 million will be spent this year. The question is: would the Soviet Union fear two more armoured divisions in BAOR or six more nuclear hunter-killer submarines more than Trident? The answer is obvious to anyone.
I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden), whom I congratulate on initiating the debate, that I understand that on the evidence given to the Select Committee on Defence the cost of Trident will be spread across the Defence Vote and will not be confined to the Navy Vote.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Harlow shed crocodile tears over American defence expenditure and the American economy. I understood that he and his hon. Friends on the Left of the Labour Party wanted to throw the Americans out of Britain and to leave NATO. Why should he worry about the American economy? He should be rather pleased if it faces difficulties.

Mr. Newens: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to allow him to get away with that. I think that the American defence commitment is nonsensical and idiotic in both American and world terms. However, I wish Britain to retain its friendship with the United States. I wish the United States to prosper, and that wish extends to every other country.

Sir Patrick Wall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is genuine in saying that he wants to retain American friendship, but how we shall do that if we throw the Americans out of their British bases—their air bases and their Polaris bases—and leave NATO is beyond my comprehension.
When the Government came to power they promised to give first priority to defence, and that is exactly what they did. They immediately increased service pay. They are now spending between 5.3 and 5.5 per cent. of GDP on defence. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team on so doing.
Defence must always be measured against the threat. I believe that the danger will come in the next few years. New leaders will come into the Kremlin when Mr. Brezhnev goes, and his departure cannot be very far off. The arms programme that was started by the Soviet Union in 1962 has now reached fruition. Their armaments will either have to be used or renewed.
The Soviet economy is declining and the Polish disease is spreading to other satellites. The cohesion of the USSR

itself is under pressure. It is receiving little financial help or advanced technology from the West, on which it has depended. It is heavily in debt to the West through COMECON, the satellites and through its own trading.
Against that background, can new younger hawks taking over the Kremlin not worry about the future? In such a situation, does not a dictatorship tend to turn the eyes of its people outwards towards aggression against somebody else to take their mind off their own sorrows and privation? If we want to avoid a third world war—I am sure that we all do—we must be strong enough in the next five or six years to deter possible aggression from the Soviet Union. Every effort must be put into defence even if that means greater sacrifices by our people. A third world war would destroy not only our standard of living but ourselves. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham that old ships, old aircraft and old tanks should be kept in reserve for at least the next five or six years.
The traditional dilemma for British leaders is to choose between a Continental and a maritime strategy, and in more modern terms between a short war and and a long war. The Government have gambled on a short Continental war should war occur. They are trying to deter it in the short term and not in the long term. I am arguing that both alternatives could be covered if our defences were made stronger.
The danger period is from now until 1986. Our predecessors in 1913–14 and 1939–40 thought that their wars would be short. They turned out to be long and they they were wrong. We managed to survive those two wars, but if we are wrong in future and the calamity of war confronts us Britain will face the ultimate disaster.
I shall discuss briefly the short war scenario. It means that we must concentrate on the Army and the Royal Air Force. We are already organising the Army in BAOR so as to have battle groups of all arms on the front line. We are increasing their effectiveness but slightly decreasing their strength. There is a serious reinforcement problem. That means that the West's political leaders must make up their minds to use the warning time to get reinforcements across the Atlantic before there is any danger of war being declared.
If the Warsaw Pact attacks, it will do so on a narrow front but in great depth. I understand that in those circumstances about 25 per cent. of its forces will be used in the initial attack and 75 per cent. will be used in the breakout. We must therefore be able to deal with second echelon armour. We must not forget that on the central front the Soviet Union has 17,500 main battle tanks against the West's 7,000. We must be able to deal with that armour at a range of between 50 and 300 km. At present the only means that we have of so doing is artillery or Lance. The artillery might take up to five hours to identify and fire at the target. Lance is a tactical nuclear weapon and in using it we would run the danger of nuclear escalation.
This reaction time will be greatly accelerated with the introduction of the MLRS, with its 12 rockets, each containing over 600 sub-munitions. This weapon system will give us 45 times more effective instantaneous fire compared with a United States battalion of 18 155 mm. guns, or 33 times more effective instantaneous fire than a United States battalion of 11 8 in. howitzers. Therefore, it is an important weapon. It is being developed by four


NATO nations. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell us that the system will be in operation in the near future.
With the advanced targeting, identification and communications systems that are now under development, the time for identifying and firing at a target can be reduced to half an hour. By the 1990s it will be further reduced to a period of minutes. This serves to lower the nuclear threshold and makes the use of tactical nuclear weapons much less likely. I hope that we shall have the assurance that precision-guided munitions such as Copperhead will be introduced in the British Army in the near future, I hope also that we shall have the assurance that my right hon. and hon. Friends are giving thought to stand-off weapons for the RAF. Many believe that the RAF will not be able to attack ground troops without stand-off weapons, because of the powerful air defences of Soviet forces. I was pleased to hear about Sea Eagle, but that is designed for the Navy, so I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure me that new stand-off weapons are being developed for the RAF.
There are two further points about the Army. First, many of us who recently visited Germany are worried that our armour and transport do not seem to have anti-aircraft defences. When one is dealing with a large number of Russian helicopters, some of them armoured, these are an important part of our defence potential. Secondly, Lynx, as an anti-tank weapon equipped with TOW missiles, is an effective weapons system and one in which our European allies would be very interested. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure me that everything possible is being done to demonstrate this weapon system to our allies with a view to their purchasing it.
I have mentioned the central front, and there is also the important northern flank from which, to some extent, we control the main Soviet fleet base in the Kola peninsula. It is recognised that we must get reinforcements there at a time of tension, but we cannot do so unless we keep the two assault ships HMS "Fearless" and "Intrepid". There are only four hards in northern Norway so the theory of using British Rail roll-on/roll-off ships does not work out.
I hope my hon. Friend will be able to assure me that those two ships will be kept in reserve and not be scrapped as was originally planned. The ships cost £10 million each, the cost of replacement would be £100 million, but the cost of keeping them in reserve, if I remember rightly from an answer to a written question, would be £0.3 million each. Therefore, it would be a good investment to retain those ships, for without them the Royal Marine Commandos would not be able to reach Norway. These ships have command facilities and carry helicopters as well as landing craft which cannot be replaced.
I briefly turn to the long war scenario. We have to remember that about 1 million men or more and 10 million tons of equipment have to be transported across the Atlantic, and 97 per cent. of the equipment has to come by sea. Once again this emphasises the importance of warning time and the early use of that warning time. We must remember that the Soviet northern fleet, based on the Kola peninsula, contains 51 SSBNs, 44 SSGNs or SSGs, 28 SSNs and 74 SSKs. The Soviet Union is now building ballistic submarines of the Typhoon class of 25,000 tons with 20 missiles with a range of 5,000 miles. It is also building the Oscar class SSGNs of 15,000 tons with 24 anti-ship missiles. These are formidable weapons and must be countered.
What is the NATO requirement? First, it must protect the strike fleet, which is mainly an American commitment, and, secondly, it must hold the GI-UK gap—the line between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom, which Russian submarines from Kola would have to penetrate to gain the deep waters of the Atlantic—and we also have to provide escorts for area cover or convoy protection.
My right hon. Friend will know that anti-submarine warfare is teamwork. It requires not only maritime patrol aircraft and hunter-killer submarines, but surface ships with helicopters. If one of those factors is left out of the equation it will not succeed. We are told that we will cut down our numbers of frigate and destroyer forces and make up by additional maritime patrol aircraft, but there are only four more to be made up, because the remainder will be used for early air warning purposes. I hope that we will introduce a new class of aircraft, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State will address himself to that problem.
On the SSNs, the hunter-killer submarines, we have in the past ordered one every year. Now it is one every 18 months, and we are going backwards, because we are to scrap HMS "Dreadnought". When we start building Trident submarines we will obviously decrease our building rate of SSNs. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us that we will increase the number of SSNs on order up to one a year.
I hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham has suggested, that even if Chatham dockyard is to chose the nuclear submarine refitting and refuelling complex will remain. I have visited Devonport dockyard, and I am not sure that it could do all the work. Even if it could, it would be wrong to put all our eggs in one basket.
Evidence was given to the Select Committee on Defence that the Type 23 cannot be put to sea before 1986 at the earliest; also, that we want to sell it abroad. If it is merely to tow Arrays it will not be saleable abroad. Therefore, it must be a conventional frigate, armed with the lightweight Sea Wolf and lightweight Sea Dart. Why do the Government not think of a cheaper way of towing the Arrays, perhaps with re-engined trawlers or tugs, which would be adequate for this purpose?
I agree that it is folly to sell HMS "Invincible" to the Australians at the moment. She should be kept at least until the remainder of her class are commissioned. These ships cost over £200 million but could be sunk in the first day of any war, because they have no point defence. All that is needed is a few million pounds to put lightweight Sea Wolves on each quarter of these ships. This should be done as a matter of urgency, as it is unlikely that there would be time to do so in time of tension.
I hope that when the Buccaneers are replaced by Tornado they will be held in reserve and equipped with Sea Eagle, as they would be important to Norway in the event of war.
I turn now to the future. We are entering an era of anti-satellite satellites, fractional orbital bombardment systems and multiple orbital bombardment systems. These are devices that circle the earth in various orbits and from which missiles or bombs can be released on earth targets. These we leave to the super powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. However, space will play a vital part in a future war.
I should like assurances that we are continuing research on high-energy lasers and particle beam weapons for


defence purposes. Such weapons are being developed for the protection of American carriers as well as for antiballistic missile systems, and I hope that we are keeping abreast of these developments.
It is always said that we tend to fight the last war. Let us hope that there will never be another war, but if there is let us think of the future rather than of the past.
In spite of all the propaganda in the press and on television, NATO is in good heart. The rearmament programme started by President Carter in 1977 is going well. For 20 years the USSR has spent from 15 to 17 per cent. of its GNP on defence. The equivalent figures for NATO are 5 to 7 per cent. Therefore, we have a great deal of leeway to make up and time is not on our side.
That is why the Government should give even higher priority to defence of the realm than they are at the moment, even if this means spending more money on what is a vital insurance policy for the future of every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) on his success in the ballot and on taking defence as his subject. However, that is as far as my agreement with him goes. The motion is in three parts. The first welcomes the
decision to maintain the strategic nuclear deterrent when Polaris reaches the end of its useful life.
The hon. Member is arguing here that he welcomes Trident and the Government's commitment to Trident following Polaris in the future. I disagree with that view.
The hon. Member then goes on to disagree with the Government imposing cash limits on the Ministry of Defence. I understand the hon. Gentleman's problem in Chatham and he has spoken for his constituents. But it would be wrong for a Government who are imposing such harsh cash limits on other Government Departments, and on expenditure on such desirable activities as social services, not to impose cash limits on defence spending. The motion refers to
a time when the threat facing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation alliance has never been greater".
I disagree with that. There is a great deal of sabre rattling and a great desire to encourage and increase the arms race—yet the evidence shows that there is no need to do so.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) said that today is the anniversary of the invasion of Singapore. In the circumstances in which we are now living, we should think not about the invasion of the Japanese military might, but about the invasion of Britain by Japanese industry. Although we welcome it, it is deplorable that the only good news that we are waiting to hear is whether Datsun will come to Wales or Sunderland. We must recognise that the Japanese have been successful in developing televisions and motor cars because they are prohibited from incurring great expenditure on defence. Under their constitution, they are not allowed to spend money on nuclear weapons. Yet we in this debate are talking about spending a great deal more on defence.

Sir Patrick Wall: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Japan depends entirely on the United States for defence. Does he want Britain to be in that position also?

Mr. Evans: That question relates to the whole argument whether Britain should have an independent nuclear deterrent. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants the Japanese to have an independent nuclear deterrent?

Sir Patrick Wall: I want the Japanese to spend more on defence.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is committing himself to wanting the Japanese to spend more on defence. A recent report of the United Nations estimated that by 1980 world military expenditure had grown to more than $500 billion—that is, more than £250 billion. The hon. Member for Toxteth rightly said that youngsters have a deep anxiety about the massive preparations for a third world war, with all its implications for nuclear weapons. He was concerned about that anxiety, but I welcome it because the one thing that will stop the arms race is people asking the Government for their aims. There are now more than 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world, while in 1950 there were probably no more than 200. As the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) asked earlier, what about Japan? If we argue that Britain should have an independent nuclear deterrent, what right do we have to tell any other sovereign State that it must not have an independent nuclear deterrent?
The atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima had a destructive force of 15 kilotons of TNT. Today's strategic and tactical weapons—more than 50,000 of them—have a total destructive power of 15 million kilotons. The world has a destructive capability equal to 1 million Hiroshimas, yet we are saying that we do not contribute enough to that destructive capability.
The Tory Government are planning to spend more than £8 billion on the Trident programme. This debate is timely because the appropriate Sub-Committee is deciding whether to go ahead with Trident—which will be obsolete by the time that it is built—or enter a new Trident programme that will be more expensive. If we do that, we shall have to reassess expenditure, and it may be not £8 billion but £10 billion. If Britain argues that it must possess an independent nuclear weapon, that same argument can be used by all other countries. Does any hon. Member believe that world peace will be made more secure by an escalation in the arms race and by increasing the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons? Arms expenditure is a tremendous burden on the economy. The Blue Papers issued by the Ministry of Defence show that Britain is spending £12.5 billion on arms, which is 5.2 per cent of gross domestic product. It is less than the United States, but greater than the 11 other members of NATO.

Mr. Keith Best (Anglesey): For the sake of completeness, will the hon. Gentleman give his estimate of what proportion of GNP the Soviet Union is spending on arms? Is it not about 12 or 13 per cent.? Would it not be highly irresponsible if Britain did not seek to defend itself against that manifest threat?

Mr. Evans: It is probably correct to say that the Soviet Union spends a high proportion of GNP on arms. However, the Russians argue that their GNP is not as high as that of America. If the hon. Gentleman's point is that the Soviet Union is spending too much on military preparations, I agree with him. We cannot end the arms race if only one side reduces its expenditure. The


Opposition are not arguing that defence expenditure should be ended. There has been division in the Social Democratic Party about arms expenditure, as there has been in the Labour Party. There is certainly division among Tory Members. They must understand the problems of the Secretary of State for Defence. The previous Secretary of State lost his job because he stuck to his ground. He is now the Leader of the House. He said that there should be no reduction in conventional weapons. The Secretary of State told Conservative Party members this weekend that if they want Trident and a massive expenditure on nuclear weapons they cannot have Chatham dockyard. They have to make a choice. Yet Conservative Members want Chatham dockyard, all the conventional forces and nuclear weapons.

Mr. Alan Clark: Right.

Mr. Evans: That intervention proves that there is division in the Conservative ranks. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) is a prominent member of the Defence Committee. He wants all the present defence capabilities, and more. That is what we are arguing about. The Japanese have been successful industrially because they have curbed their defence expenditure. A major problem for Britain since the last war has been excessive spending on arms. Conservative Members should not believe that the arms race preserves peace. It has been a waste of human resources. We should use our efforts to encourage talks on arms control, limitation and reduction. We shall not bring that about by escalating the arms race.
The Labour Party unconditionally opposes the replacement of Polaris by Trident or any other nuclear weapons system. That is the right and courageous stand. From that position we can speak to other nations and tell them that we are prepared to abandon our manufacture of weapons. I appreciate that the Soviet Union and the United States have massive supplies of nuclear weapons. However, we must prevent the continual proliferation of the possession of nuclear weapons. The Labour Party reaffirms its total and unconditional opposition to the manufacture or deployment of cruise missiles and the neutron bomb. It will be interesting to discover the Government's attitude to the neutron bomb. Does the Select Committee on Defence want the neutron bomb as well as Trident? That weapon is an abomination and we must deplore it.

Sir Victor Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman is making much of the question of arms control and disarmament. We all agree with that. He is now saying that in advance of such agreement we should give up the right to have certain weapons with which to defend ourselves. Is he really suggesting that it is better for Britain to announce in advance that it will forgo the right to have certain weapons in defence and hope that the Russians will cut their weapons in accord?

Mr. Evans: One can take the argument in whatever way one wishes. The world is already spending too much on arms. I do not believe that the Soviet Union or America will deliberately announce that the third world war is starting on Sunday morning at 11 am. It will not happen in that way. The real danger is that one morning we shall read The Guardian or The Times—if The Times is still in existence because we do not know what the Government will do about that—and we shall find that Paris has ceased

to exist. Then we must ask who dropped the nuclear weapon. The real danger of the next world conflagration is that of war by accident. That is why we must stop the nonsense of building more nuclear weapons. We already have 50,000, which is more than enough to blow up this planet and all the planets in the universe. We must call a halt.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman means what he says, why have we not heard a statement from him supporting the talks in Geneva for a balanced reduction of theatre nuclear weapons? Why has there not been an official welcome from the Opposition or from the CND for the peace initiative that has been introduced by the Americans and which is being discussed in Geneva now?

Mr. Evans: I should have been kind to the hon. Gentleman and not given way to him. The Opposition have demanded those talks. The difference is that we wish things to happen and we are prepared to do something to bring them about. The Conservative Party is only talking. I hope that the Geneva talks will be successful. If we read today's newspapers, we see that Alexander Haig is to meet President Ceausescu of Romania. They wish to talk about peace, and yet Caspar Weinberger said yesterday that he wishes the Western powers to increase defence expenditure—which must increase by 12 per cent. to keep up with inflation—by another 4 per cent. in real terms. We shall cripple our economies, which are already in great difficulty.
I agree wholeheartedly with all the efforts that have been made and I am sure that all Opposition Members wish the talks between the United States of America and the Soviet Union to be successful. However, at the same time as making those talks successful and moving from SALT II to SALT III and genuine world disarmament talks, we must consider our defence expenditure and ask ourselves whether we can afford to increase it when we are cutting back on benefits, social services and industry.
Further expenditure is wrong, immoral and should be rejected. That is why I shall oppose the motion.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) will forgive me if I do not follow every word that he said, but I have undertaken to speak briefly. However, I wish to take up his final point about disarmament. Of course we wish that, but how can we guarantee, without an adequate system of supervision, that the other side will do what they say and, secondly, that the disarmament will not be to the disadvantage of our defences?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) on choosing this subject for debate. We approach it against the background of Poland and Afghanistan. A significant point was raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). There are many young people in Britain who do not know what war is. They do not remember Czechoslovakia or Hungary. They think of Poland as being far away and not a war. It is important not only to educate young people to realise the dangers of war, but to realise the importance that Britain and the Conservative Party attach to our defence to ensure that war never happens again. Those


young people are misled by propaganda, which is being hurled at them without any justification and without any historical background.
The priority to defend ourselves and our allies was clearly laid down in the Conservative Party's election manifesto. The preservation of peace must be paid for. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) pointed that out. It is a question not of what we can afford, but how much it will cost to defend ourselves against an aggressor. We should calculate it in that way and not on how much we believe we can afford. We must meet our obligations, and it is essential that we possess, and continue to possess, a nuclear deterrent that makes us independent of the United States of America and every other country. So far the Government have managed to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) mentioned the naval forces of the Soviet Union. We must ensure that our naval forces are adequately protected and that they have the proper equipment on board with which to protect themselves. I believe that our naval forces will be attacked by missiles. Therefore, it is up to us to ensure that our naval forces are equipped with adequate missiles to protect themselves.
The real argument today is about what form of nuclear deterrent we should adopt. I have always been an advocate of Polaris and its modifications. I make no excuse for that. However, the picture has changed and we should think in the longer term of Trident II. We shall be dependent almost entirely for spares and replacements on America. If America puts one version of Trident out of commission, slowly but surely we shall not be able to get the spares unless we make them ourselves, which is almost impossible. Therefore, we should aim for a longer-term nuclear deterrent. At the beginning the Americans may have plenty of spares, but as time goes on those spares will run out and we will not be able, except at an extortionate price, to re-equip our missiles which are rapidly going out of date.
I do not believe that we shall achieve standardisation overnight. It is a slow process and I know that my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence would agree that we must start with small parts, such as ball-bearings. We cannot standardise the major weaponry, such as tanks, but we must attempt to standaridise from the bottom.
During a recession, when armaments are being delivered ahead of time, the Ministry of Defence is always at a disadvantage, because it must pay for them in advance. We must consider a longer-term Treasury approach. Our defence budget cannot be completed in a year. It must be completed over a longer period so that money is not wasted and we receive the maximum possible benefit from our expenditure. At the moment the Ministry is confined by the strictures that are placed upon it by the Treasury. The strictures are old-fashioned, out of date and should disappear.
The vital point is the difference between our strategy and that of America. The Americans have a different problem. They are thousands of miles away. One missile dropped on one city would not dislocate the whole country, whereas one missile dropped on this country would do immense damage. The Americans have a slightly different approach, but it is essential that we and the Americans stick together, because we are the only

people capable of producing the defences that are necessary. The Americans have recently realised that there is a danger of chemical warfare. They appreciate that the Soviet Union is building up such weapons.
There must be firm and close co-operation between America and Great Britain. We are interdependent. Although our short-term objectives may be different, our long-term objective is to preserve peace. Everything else must be subjugated to that objective.
Recently, operations have been carried out in Europe to show that it is vital that we have adequate reserve forces. We must consider how we can balance conventional and nuclear forces. I have always said—and I do not take a word back—that we have been able to preserve peace for so long simply and solely because we have had an advantage over the enemy because of our independent nuclear deterrent. As long as we have that advantage, we shall preserve peace. It is the duty of the Government to look not so much at the cost as at the effectiveness of the armaments that they produce. I look to my Government to make sure that the money is not cut back, because we need it to protect this country and the world against aggression.

Mr. John Silkin: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) on having chosen this important debate as the subject for his motion.
The hon. Gentleman has represented his constituency for about 32 years. He has fought and won 10 successive parliamentary elections, each time pledging his party to keep open the Royal dockyard at Chatham. That yard began life in the sixteenth century as Gillingham dockyard. It is the biggest single employer in the Medway towns and the main supplier of engineering apprenticeships. That is why the hon. Gentleman's pledge was so important to the people who live in the area and why the pledge was so often repeated.
As recently as 1980 the Tory Government underlined that pledge in respect not just of Chatham but of all the four home dockyards. It took them under 12 months to pass the death sentence on Chatham and Portsmouth and to add Gibraltar for good measure.
The Government have reneged on one of the Conservative Party's most explicit and most repeated commitments. They now propose to pay their debts to the people of the Medway towns, Portsmouth and Gibraltar in counterfeit currency. The outcome of last summer's review of the Government's defence programme will wreak economic damage in Chatham and Portsmouth alike, but the foundations of the economy of Gibraltar will be shattered. The immediate local impact of the closure and of the rundown in naval depots will be multiplied many times over by the knock-on effects, as the hon. Gentleman admitted.
For example, in my constituency of Deptford and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) good and efficient naval stores will close. The Minister of State knows that we have discussed that. In the end he said that it was inevitable. The ripple effects on employment mean that the loss of civilian jobs, given in last summer's White Paper as being between 35,000 and 40,000, is nearer to 50,000 and probably a good deal more.
The hon. Member for Gillingham will bemoan the fate of Chatham, but he knows as well as I do that all the talk of alternative employment is meaningless. The people there have seen it all before and so has the hon. Gentleman. They point to what happened when the Royal dockyard at Sheerness was closed in 1960. Although some people obtained work in the Chatham dockyard—that is about all that happened—Sheerness remains today what it has been since 1960—a black spot of unemployment. At the last count unemployment was 18 · 2 per cent. Once an area is dead, it cannot be revived. One cannot give the kiss of life to a corpse.
The lengthening dole queues at Chatham, Portsmouth and Gibraltar and the cuts in Armed Forces manpower of nearly 22,000, also announced last summer, the cuts in equipment and the reduction in Royal Air Force flying hours stem from a single cause. They represent only the opening frame in a series of cuts in a defence programme that was unsustainable from the moment it was launched, a defence programme bloated and distorted by a single extravagant and ill-conceived project—the Trident missile purchase. It is at that point that the hon. Gentleman's motion avoids the real issue and the recent history of the Government's defence changes.

Mr. Churchill: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to recognise that none of the cuts currently confronting us, for the next two or three years, has anything to do with any proposed purchase of Trident. Does he not further recognise that Trident, even at the higher anticipated cost for the D5 system, is, none the less, cheaper than the Tornado programme?

Mr. Silkin: I shall develop the hon. Gentleman's second point in my own way. With regard to his first point, the cuts and purchase of Trident are part and parcel of the defence programme, looking ahead, and that is what the Conservative Government and the former and present Secretaries of State for Defence had and have in mind.
It is at this point that the hon. Member for Gillingham evaded the real issue. The first defence change was the removal early last year of the present Lord President of the Council from his post as Secretary of State for Defence. The present Lord President had been ill-advised enough to act as though he believed in the Conservative Party election manifesto of 1979. It was a grotesque error. He proposed to embark on a full scale nuclear capability coupled with a full scale conventional capability. Unfortunately for the Lord President, he fell foul of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not because they thought that the money could be better spent on schools, houses or hospitals—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said—but because his policy implied a vast increase in public expenditure by a Government pledged to reducing it. As the Lord President was obstinate, he was replaced by the present Secretary of State.
The present Secretary of State is a man of great resource, not overburdened with a desire to keep electoral pledges. However, he, too, wanted to have his nuclear cake and eat it. His way of paying for the nuclear cake was to cut the conventional capability, including killing off three of our naval dockyards.
The other day, in answer to some questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, the Minister of State estimated the annual savings of the Defence Vote

as being "up to" £10 million in respect of Gibraltar and £65 million to £70 million each in respect of Chatham and Portsmouth, all at September 1981 prices. Therefore, the savings on all three dockyards tot up to a maximum of £150 million a year. The House will recall that we are talking about a job loss of at least 50,000 people. At the same price level, according to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the cost of 100,000 unemployed is £438 million in transfer payments and revenues forgone, or £219 million for 50,000 unemployed. In other words, what will save the defence Vote £150 million will cost other Departments nearly 50 per cent. above that figure.
However, to achieve that theoretical saving and keep his nuclear status symbol, the Secretary of State has to put at risk the real defence of these islands. We are left instead with Trident—mark II, it now seems—and the pretence of an independent nuclear deterrent. That system deters no one, is not independent of the United States, and does not even get us a ticket to the top table at Geneva. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) used the phrase, "going naked into the conference chamber". We are not even going in in our underwear.
To preserve a naval capability, we must have a proper ship refit programme. The closures were not made on defence considerations, for inevitably they cut right down the number of truly operational ships. That, in turn, means that the Government's programme robs the country of the chance to defend itself in a conventional war.
What is true of the sea is true of the air. The Tornado air defence version is being delayed. Will we ever get such a version? Or will history repeat itself, as it has done so often in the past, and will Tornado F2, like many previous projects, disappear for ever? In such an event, it means that the Government will be robbing the country of the defences that it needs in any conventional war. I agree with the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) that the Secretary of State for Defence is gambling on a nuclear conflict. In my view, he is neglecting the possibility of a conventional war.
The policy expounded by the Secretary of State is the peddling of dreams. The reality is that the structure of our defence policy has to change.

Sir Patrick Wall: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I said that in a short war, not a nuclear war, the Russians could break through in seven days. Is he suggesting that we should have the same number of dockyards now as when we had a fleet that was five or six times the size of the present fleet?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions. If a conflict of five to six days were to bring an enemy—it may not be the Russians—to the Channel ports, it must be a nuclear conflict. That is what the whole of the Government's policy is about. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question, in my view we need to have the four home dockyards and Gibraltar now. I am sorry that the Conservative Government are not willing to carrry out the pledges that were given at the time of the election in 1979 or 1980.
Our defence policy will have to change because in the. 1980s Britain needs an effective conventional defence, both at sea and in the air. We must cease to be deluded by the nuclear illusion. In my view, the Government's policy is failing the nation, and in doing so it is failing the people who work and live in Gibraltar, Portsmouth and in


the constituency of the hon. Member for Gillingham. For that reason the Labout Party well understands his determination to put the matter to a vote, and we shall watch with interest the outcome of this debate.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) on drawing the first place in the ballot and on raising the subject of defence. I know how great his concern has been for the effect on his constituents of the closure of the Chatham naval base, which has given magnificent service to the Royal Navy for 400 years. I pay tribute to him, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner), Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and Faversham (Mr. Moate), for the untiring way in which they have brought to the Government's attention the point of view of their constituents. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met them on several occasions. We have met the Chatham Dockyard Defence Committee as well as representatives of the local authorities and trade unions, and we have visited Chatham. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has twice visited Chatham, as has the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Before I deal with my hon. Friend's motion in greater detail, I want to say a word about the extraordinary speech that we have just heard fron the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). Is he saying that a Labour Government would reopen Chatham, restore the present dockyard numbers in Portsmouth, and reopen Gibraltar?

Mr. John Silkin: If the Minister can undertake that the Conservative Government retire today and we have a Labour Government tomorrow, the answer is "Yes", but as we do not know when there will be an election, or even whether there will be a Chatham, it is not possible to answer such a question.

Mr. Blaker: In that case, I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks that those dockyards would do. Labour policy on defence, as I understand it, would involve a cut in defence spending of £3,500 million a year—not, I think, at 1982 prices. The former Labour spokesman on defence matters, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), said that the full Labour Party policy, if enforced, would involve the loss of hundreds of thousands of defence jobs in this country. How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with what he has just said? I have seldom heard such nonsense as the speech that he has just made.
The right hon. Member for Deptford talked about Trident. He blamed the Trident proposal for our review, which has led to the closure of Chatham and Gibraltar dockyards and to the rundown of Portsmouth. That cannot be true. The present expenditure on Trident is minimal. The problems exist now and will do for the next two years. In a few years' time, as a result of the review, our problems will be diminished. Is he saying that if the Trident programme were abandoned he would spend the money saved on other and conventional defence projects? If he is not saying that, his speech was a tissue of humbug.
It is a credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham that his motion is framed so that it applies not only to Chatham but to defence as a whole, because it

enables the House to debate this important subject at a time when we have not done so, as hon. Gentlemen rightly commented, for some months. I shall refer specifically to Chatham later, but first I want to take up one of my hon. Friend's general comments.
Although I do not agree with my hon. Friend's motion as a whole, I agree with him about the importance of maintaining a strategic nuclear deterrent. I agree, too, that the threat facing NATO has never been greater. We all know the disparity in strength between the Warsaw Pact conventional forces and those of NATO in Europe, about which I have spoken on many occasions in the House. We know, too, of the alarming build-up of the Soviet Unions's SS20 missiles, with their triple warheads. Two hundred and eighty of them are now deployed, of which 190 are aimed against Western Europe. Soviet military strength exceeds what could possibly be regarded as necessary for defence alone. The new Typhoon class of Soviet ballistic missile-firing submarines, as my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said, is nearly as large as our modern aircraft carriers, and it is 5,000 tons heavier. It carries 20 ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and a range exceeding 4,000 nautical miles.
The Soviet Union's spending on arms in the 1970s increased by 40 per cent. in real terms. In real terms spending on defence by NATO fell. That is why NATO recently set itself the target of a 3 per cent. increase in spending per year. It is a target which Britain is honouring.

Dr. John Gilbert: I am sure that the Minister would not want to mislead the House. At present we are not honouring the commitment. It was honoured under the previous Government. If the hon. Gentleman looks at his arithmentic he will see that this Government have failed to honour it.

Mr. Blaker: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. On our present plans, spending by the United Kingdom in 1985–86 will be 21 per cent. higher in real terms than when we came to office.

Dr. Gilbert: We are not honouring the commitment at present.

Mr. Blaker: As I read the motion, it says that a lack of flexibility is being imposed on the Ministry of Defence in its financial planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) also dealt with that important topic. We already have a degree of flexibility to make the best use of resources in the course of the year by out ability, subject to the agreement of the House, to switch expenditure between Votes within the defence budget. But our task could be made much easier if there was also greater flexibility between successive years in the management of the defence budget.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 26 January:
The principal problem facing the defence budget is that, due to the recession, Ministry of Defence contractors deliver equipment faster than they would otherwise. That has to be fitted into a tight annual cash limit. More flexibility from one year to another would enormously benefit the management of defence resources and would make it much more efficient.

Mr. Alan Clark: That is stretching the credulity of I and my hon. Friends to an extent which I am sure my hon. Friend does not intend. It is not enough to postulate the matter as a tiresome abstraction that is incapable of


solution. Who is responsible for the position? Has my hon. Friend made a case to them? What can we expect as an improvement?

Mr. Blaker: If my hon. Friend allows me to continue for a few minutes the answer will become clear.
Let me first finish the quotation:
More flexibility would be a great plus towards looking after the programme. "—[Official Roport ; 26 January, 1982; Vol. 16, c. 736.]
My hon. Friend may not know that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), on 9 February that the Government:
recognised the advantages … of introducing some form of end year flexibility … and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is looking at this again."—[Official Report; 9 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 856.]
Naturally we aim at high standards of financial discipline, but the defence equipment programme, which accounts for 44 per cent. of our budget this year, includes many major items that take years to design and build and often require advanced technology. Nevertheless, our performance in financial control has been creditable.
After some years of underspending, with the consequent failure to use the resources voted for defence by the House, the overspend in the years since 1978–79 has averaged less than 1 per cent. Most businesses, with their facilities for overdrafts and for carrying forward cash balances, would congratulate themselves if they got as close to their targets. But we should be greatly helped if we had an ability to carry underspends or overspends from one year to the next.
The motion understates what the Government have achieved and are achieving in defence. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham spoke of the reduction in the numbers of frigates and destroyers. Even with the fewer ships that we plan, the total number of ship weeks at sea for destroyers and frigates will be almost identical with what it has been.

Sir Frederick Burden: The fact that fewer ships are kept at sea for much longer periods will wear them out more quickly, which will mean that they need refits more frequently, so we wish to know whether the refits will be available.

Mr. Blaker: If my hon. Friend allows me to continue I shall clarify that point. But that view is not shared by the Admirals with which I have discussed the matter.
By abandoning the expensive mid-life modernisations that have taken up to three years to complete and by doing more training at sea, a greater proportion of a ship's life will be spent at sea.
It has been suggested that the reduction in surface ship numbers will lower the nuclear threshold. On the contrary, had we continued on our previous course, we should increasingly have found that we had ships, tanks and aeroplanes that were under-armed, with inadequate fuel for training and diminishing supplies of spares and ammunition for training or for war. That would have been a fatal and a foolish course to continue on. That would have been the way to lower nuclear thresholds.

Mr. Keith Speed: My hon. Friend will know that the Dutch Navy, with its Kortenaer frigates, is not abandoning mid-life modernisation. How can he ensure, for example, that our type 42 destroyers and type 22 or 21 frigates can keep abreast of the threat post-1986 in

electronic, underwater and anti-aircraft warfare without modernisation? Our ships will be obsolete if they are not kept abreast of the threat. That view is shared by the Royal Netherlands Navy.

Mr. Blaker: We shall have more new ships more often.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Some of us who went along with the Government's policy of phasing out a number of the present surface ships with great reluctance did so on the assumption that there would be an accelerated build of the type 23 and 2400 series conventional submarines, but there appears to be no sense of urgency in bringing forward either of those designs. That fact is of great concern to many of us.

Mr. Blaker: I shall tell the House about the number of ships coming in. We adhere to what we said in the defence review debates last summer about the numbers of destroyers and frigates that we shall maintain.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is Dr. Luns, the Secretary-General of NATO, in full agreement with what we are doing?

Mr. Blaker: I have not heard from Dr. Luns any dissent from our proposals last year.
Let me tell the House what our plans for 1982–83 will involve. The Royal Navy will take delivery of a carrier, an SSN, two type 42s, a type 22, one mine countermeasures vessel and a seabed operations vessel. In addition, under construction are four destroyers, three frigates, three hunter-killer submarines and six mime-sweepers. HMS "Ark Royal" is fitting out. We announced last week that we are inviting tenders for our seventeenth hunter-killer submarine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice asked about future SSN numbers. I confirm that we intend to stick to the numbers of hunter-killers previously announced.
We shall be accepting into service later this year the new Sting Ray torpedo which is the most advanced weapon of its type in the world. We are going ahead with the new heavyweight torpedo and with the Marconi lightweight tracking radar for the very effective Sea Wolf missile system. Sea Wolf is an air defence system to protect our ships against enemy aircraft and missiles. It will maintain our capability in advanced radar development and provide work for several hundred people at Marconi.
The House will be glad to know that Marconi and British Aerospace today announced a commercial agreement whereby they will co-operate on developing a vertical launch version of Sea Wolf. In addition, British Aerospace will collaborate with Marconi on the new British heavyweight torpedo and on other torpedo developments. The Ministry of Defence warmly welcomes that collaboration.
We shall be placing an order for the development and production of Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles to meet the needs of the Navy and RAF. Sea Eagle's radar homing head and long range provide an over-the-horizon attack capability that allows a missile to be launched from well outside the effective missile defence cover of enemy ships. It will provide employment for some 2,300.
Finally, on the naval side, in the past two weeks we have had four successful firings of Chevaline, which will maintain the capability of our Polaris submarines. We


expect that the operational deployment of Chevaline will occur shortly. [Interruption.]] On jobs in general, in 1981–82, the Ministry of Defence will spend about £5,000 million with British industry. That is about 15 per cent. more in real terms than in 1978–79. A further substantial increase is expected in 1982–83.

Mr. Alan Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because it saves one making remarks from a sedentary position. Before leaving the naval scene, will he tell the House how many ships, including submarines, have been ordered by the Government?

Mr. Blaker: The short answer is 15.
At the beginning of 1979, just before we came into office, the Army was nearly 9,000 trained adult males under strength, with a voluntary discharge rate running at about 5 per cent. Recruiting and discharge rates were deteriorating and pay was between 16 and 26 per cent. behind comparable jobs in civilian life. Only two of the 14 infantry battalions in BAOR were able to man their establishment of four rifle companies. The Territorial Army was 19 per cent. under establishment. On equipment, the First British Corps compared very badly with others in Germany. Replacement of the Chieftain tank was not due until the end of the 1980s, if then. We were short of medium artillery. Milan was only about to be introduced. The Army was overstretched, undermanned, underpaid and badly equipped. Today, the Army is up to and, indeed, a little over strength.

Mr. Newens: What does the Minister expect with 4 million unemployed?

Mr. Blaker: The number of men leaving voluntarily is insignificant. Northern Ireland now has only three roulement battalions instead of seven at the beginning of 1979.
We are now manning a full front-line tank strength in Germany, which has increased by 126 tanks, or 27 per cent., from three years ago. By the middle of this year we shall have trebled the number of medium-range guns in BAOR, and we already have the FH70 towed medium gun in service. There are over 400 Milan anti-tank missile posts with units and we have increased the amount of Rapier air defence equipment in Germany. By the middle of the decade—right on target—we can look forward to bringing into service sufficient of the much improved Challenger tank fully to equip four armoured regiments.
Capability of our armed helicopter fleet was improved by the introduction of Lynx with its full quota of TOW missiles. During 1982–83 we shall take delivery of 6,500 Clansman radio sets. These are just some of the things we have been doing.
I was asked recently about the reduction of front-line RAF aircraft. It is only natural, when withdrawing from service older types such as the Vulcan and Canberra and introducing new ones such as the Tornado, that there should be a drop in numbers, at least for a time. The early withdrawal of the older aircraft types, mostly bombers or reconnaissance aircraft, was foreseen by my right hon. Friend in a statement to the House over a year ago. However, we are still planning for the full buy of 385 Tornado aircraft, of which the ground attack version is now coming into service.
I recently visited the training wing at Honington and I was told that the RAF could not remember an aircraft it had been more pleased with on its coming into service than this one.

Mr. Robert Atkins: My hon. Friend will not be surprised if I ask him what he thinks will happen in the near and medium future on the replacement of Tornado, Harrier or Jaguar aircraft, which affects his constituency, mine and those of many other Conservative Members. If the Government are not to fund it and if the lead—in time is as long as he knows it is, bearing in mind the number of jobs depending on the P110 going ahead, where does he think the money will come from? Can he give a categorical assurance that we will not end up buying American because we do not build our own aeroplane within these shores?

Mr. Blaker: It would take me too long to answer all my hon. Friend's questions. However, I recognise the importance of his questions. I know that he discussed such matters recently with my right hon. Friend. We attach great importance to a satisfactory solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham spoke with understandable deep feeling when he moved the motion. Reasons for the closure of Chatham, the rundown of Portsmouth dockyard and the closure of Gibraltar dockyard were explained to the House. They arise largely from the rapidly increasing costs of sophisticated modern equipment.
A major decision resulting from our review was to do away with the major mid-life modernisation of surface ships which, for a frigate, now costs about £70 million a time.
It is true that in an answer given some time ago the highest figure for the cost of a major mid-life modernisation for a frigate was about £60 million. However, the frigates then under modernisation were clearly going to cost more than £70 million by the time they were finished. That was explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham——

Sir Frederick Burden: With great respect, I consider that it is misleading to state that it would cost £70 million when not one refit has cost that much.
We know that there is a greatly increased sophistication required in modern vessels of war. Surely that means greater work for the Royal dockyards. The Minister stated some time ago that these refits could occur only in the Royal dockyards.

Mr. Blaker: If my hon. Friend considers the record, he will appreciate that we have not misled him or the House. We were referring to refits that occurred at the time of last summer's review. Our ability to improve the hitting power of our forces, which was a major objective of the review, would be gravely damaged if we kept open dockyard capacity that we did not need costing nearly £150 million a year quite apart from what we would forgo from the sale of surplus real estate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham believes that we need the nuclear refitting capacity of Chatham. Chatham has done an excellent job in that field, but the best advice from all the experts, naval and civilian—

Sir Frederick Burden: Not all of them.

Mr. Blaker: —confirmed to me when I visited Devonport and Rosyth that we shall have enough capacity in those two dockyards to carry out all the refitting of nuclear submarines that we shall need.

Sir Frederick Burden: No.

Mr. Churchill: rose

Mr. Blaker: I hesitate about giving way again because I have already given way about eight times.

Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend has sought to reinforce the point that the Leander frigate mid-life refit costs approximately £70 million. However, it has never been vouchsafed to the House what the cost of the Type 23 will be. We were assured by the Government last year that that would be so much cheaper than the mid-life refit of Leanders.

Mr. Blaker: I cannot give my hon. Friend any more information at present. We are still working on that question.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—I am sorry that he is not present—raised the question of HMS "Endurance". I know that this is a subject to which many hon. Members attach importance. We plan to withdraw "Endurance" from service when it finishes its present tour in the south Atlantic. Naval vessels will visit the area from time to time although not as frequently as "Endurance" has done. We would have wished to keep "Endurance" in service if we could have afforded to do so. It was, as is usually the case, a question of priorities.
The decision does not affect our policy towards the Falkland Islands. We have no doubts about our sovereignty over the islands. The Royal Marine garrision will remain. "Endurance" has, in any case, a very limited military capability. Its withdrawal does not indicate any lessening of our interest in Antarctica. The British Antarctic Survey has its own two ships in the area. We offered "Endurance" to the survey but it was unable to accept it. The survey has its own base and can continue its work without "Endurance".
The Antarctic treaty, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion, referred, provides for demilitarisation in Antarctica. The signatories of the treaty are preparing to meet in an attempt to agree on continuing the demilitarised regime and on arrangements for exploiting the mineral resources of Antarctica within the framework of the treaty.
I wish to say more about Chatham. We have uppermost in our minds the need to carry through the changes at Chatham, Portsmouth and Gibraltar as sympathetically as possible. The needs of each differ. For reasons of time, I shall confine my remarks to Chatham. At my meeting with trade union leaders, I was pressed on the need for certainty. One measure that will help clarify the future of the work force is the declaration of the state of redundancy that we announced last Friday, as we have also done at Portsmouth. This does not mean that anyone is yet declared redundant. However, it enables local management and individuals to plan in a better way for the future. I hope that a significant number of employees will transfer to Devonport and Rosyth to help with challenging tasks in those places. Some may transfer to other Government Departments. But there will have to be a substantial number of redundancies. We shall do what we can to alleviate hardship to individuals.
On the disposal of land and buildings, discussions have been taking place between the local authorities and the Property Services Agency on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. The Kent county council has produced a planning appraisal of the historic dockyard. A joint study is being undertaken by the Property Services Agency and district planning officers of the planning potential of the part of the dockyard that may be suitable for commercial use. A number of firms have expressed interest in taking over facilities when the base closes. The most encouraging approach so far received comes from a company that is investigating the possibility of taking over facilities for shipbuiding and ship repair work. It is already known that the Medway towns are one of only three areas in the United Kingdom chosen to benefit from the enterprise allowance scheme.
There has been some discussion of alternatives to Trident and some hon. Members may yet wish to speak on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) is reported to have said in a recent speech that the Government should take a fresh look at the matter. I wish to inform the House that every time we consider what is the most cost-effective way of continuing our strategic nuclear deterrent we come up with the same answer. It is the answer at which we arrived previously, Trident. If one believes it is essential that Britain should retain an independent strategic nuclear deterrent—an objective in which all our NATO allies support us—Trident is not only the best but the most cost-effective. We are talking about a system that must be effective up to the year 2020 or thereabouts.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) suggested that the Government should examine the possibility of running-on Polaris missiles in new submarines. Like the Polaris submarines, the Polaris missiles are getting old. They will leave United States service this year. Although some stocks of spares will be available, the closing of American production and support facilities would make it difficult and expensive to maintain missiles in operational condition beyond the early 1990s.

Mr. Newens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blaker: I am sorry but I am not giving way again. The more one examines the possibility of running-on Polaris, the more one realises that one would be entering into a game of leapfrog, alternately modernising missiles and then submarines to take the modernised missiles. This would be a very expensive game. It would be played at our cost alone.

Mr. Newens: Are we going to have the D5 system?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to intervene unless the Minister gives way.

Mr. Blaker: It has been argued that cruise missiles could provide an alternative to Trident. We have examined this option carefully. We rejected it for four reasons. First, in order to be invulnerable to a pre-emptive strike, our nuclear deterrent must, like Polaris, be submarine-based. No other system has anything like the same degree of invulnerability. We have had Polaris submarines constantly at sea for 15 years, under Governments of both main parties. The Soviet Union has never found one of these submarines on patrol. We possess a substantial lead over the Russians in submarine technology.
Secondly, although the unit cost of a cruise missile is lower than that of Trident, it can only carry a single


warhead. Trident has a multiple warhead capability. In addition, cruise missiles are potentially more vulnerable to developments in Soviet air defences in the future. Many more missiles would therefore be needed to provide equivalent deterrent capability to Trident. If they were to be put in submarines to gain invulnerability from detection, more submarines would be needed to carry the missiles. Submarines are the most expensive single element in the programme.
Thirdly, cruise missiles have a much shorter range than Trident. There is a limit to how far offshore they can be launched for their guidance systems to operate. This would greatly reduce the sea room for the submarines and hence make them more vulnerable to anti-submarine warfare.
Fourthly, as an alternative to building new boats, the installation of cruise missiles in existing nuclear hunter-killer submarines has been suggested. These submarines, however, could carry only a very small number of missiles. Even converting all our existing boats would not provide an adequate deterrent capability. In any case, the SSNs are already fully committed to existing tasks and the areas of deployment and mode of operation for a strategic force that is slow, quiet and deep are different from those for the hunter-killers whose task is to seek out and destroy other submarines and surface ships.
Another misconception is that cruise missiles could easily be put in a vertical position in the forward end of our own hunter-killer submarines. This is possible for the Americans because their hunter-killers are built to a different design. It is not, however, an option open to us. If we went for a future strategic nuclear deterrent based on the cruise missile, it would be more vulnerable to detection even if deployed in submarines, more vulnerable to likely developments in Soviet air defences, even if cruise missiles were deployed in large numbers, and to have cruise missiles in large numbers would be impossibly expensive—much more expensive than Trident.
I turn briefly to the Opposition Front Bench, which has recently been joined by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). The team is distinguished by the fact that all, I understand, are opposed to Britain having a nuclear deterrent, although the right hon. Member for Deptford presumably took a different view until May 1979, when he was a member of a Labour Cabinet that not only maintained Polaris but decided to improve it with Chevaline. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), as reported in The Times of 9 February, has condemned the Trident as a first strike weapon. If he is referring to Britain's proposed Trident, that cannot possibly be true, and I suspect that he does not understand the meaning of the term "first strike".

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Minister agree that one reason for developing the Trident II especially by the Americans is its greater accuracy in taking out military rather than civilian targets and that, for that reason, it is a first strike weapon?

Mr. Blaker: Trident is more accurate, but what the right hon. Gentleman has just said confirms that he does not understand the meaning of the term "first strike". He had better do some homework. In case there is any doubt in his mind, I should add that the concept of first strike has no place in NATO thinking, anyway.
Labour Members should have a word with the Socialist Government of France, who are building up their strategic nuclear deterrent with a seventh nuclear ballistic missile submarine. On 9 July 1981, President Mitterrand said:
The installation of Soviet SS20 missiles and Backfire bombers has upset the military equilibrium in Europe. I will not accept this, and I agree that we must rearm to restore the balance. At that point we should start negotiating.
The French Socialist Foreign Minister, M. Cheysson, said of the British Labour Party's defence policy:
What does it mean that every nuclear armament will be dismantled? Where would Britain be? Nowhere. Somewhere in the moon with no defence.
Labour Members have not even a pretence of a coherent defence policy. Many of them seem not even to believe that there is a Soviet threat. Their support for unilateral disarmament, in defiance of Aneurin Bevan's warning against going naked into the conference chamber, does not increase but rather decreases the prospects for successful disarmament negotiations and does not decrease but rather increases the danger of war. If their lead were followed by Western Europe it would at best put us in the position of Poland—the victim of political intimidation backed by overwhelming military force. It is a course that defies good sense and ignores the lessons of history and it is a course that this Government will never follow.

Mr. Dick Douglas: It is not easy to follow the Minister, but, like other hon. Members from dockyard constituencies, including the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden), who should be congratulated on introducing the debate, I welcome the opportunity to speak today. I shall address most of my remarks to the future of the dockyards, and particularly the Royal naval dockyard at Rosyth.
First, however, I must say that it does the reputation of the House no good to catcall the contradiction and divisions on defence policy between or within the parties. If we were not divided on this issue, we should not be alive. It is an issue that must divide human beings and families, never mind political parties. In view of the comprehensive escalation of world defence expenditure, we cannot afford to be complacent.
It is interesting to hear Conservative Members criticise the performance of the various economies of the world and blame the poor performance of the Soviet economy on high defence expenditure amounting to 15 per cent. of GDP, while at the same time say that the American economy would perform better if defence expenditure were increased. Neither of those conclusions necessarily follows. I shall devote some time to the proportion of GDP that Britain spends on defence.
The people of the world, particularly the young, are concerned about the waste of resources. I recognise that we live in a state of fear. Indeed, to paraphrase Churchill, it may be true that it is the state of fear that has kept the peace, but that does not gainsay the fact that billions of people are suffering from starvation and malnutrition while we waste the world's resources in this way.
I make it quite clear that I am not a unilateralist. I recognise that the people of this country, having acquired a strategic nuclear deterrent, are unlikely to be so stupid as to give it up without getting something in exchange. That is just not on, in ordinary trade union bargaining terms, let alone in international negotiations. That is, as


it were, a gut level posture, but it does not mean that there should be no discussions or divisions as we try to find our way through this problem.
I turn now to the dockyards. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), when he was Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, embarked on a comprehensive and excellent study into the future of the naval dockyards. The study envisaged an overload in capacity at the dockyards. That has gone at a stroke. The Minister gave the reasons for that—we have heard them before—and it may be that the situation is rolling forward at such a pace that it cannot be reversed.
Taking the Minister at his word, if we roll forward in that way, there will be only two dockyards. I apologise to the hon. Member for Gillingham, as this is a sensitive issue, but I am taking the Government at their word. The result would be two dockyards—one at Devonport and one at Rosyth, with probably 15,000 to 20,000 people employed at Devonport, which has little land on which to expand, and 8,000 at Rosyth.
How can such a manning structure be consistent with the programme of decentralising decision-making in the dockyards, as envisaged by the hon. Member for Ashford? If there are five or six dockyards there is a role for a centralised structure within the Ministry of Defence, but that argument does not apply if there are only two. I want to see an enhanced role for the general manager in the dockyard and more decentralisation of decision-making to dockyards such as Rosyth. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
There are lessons to be learnt from the loss of the isotope, which engaged the head office in Rosyth and about which I have corresponded with the Minister. Last Monday I spent some time in the dockyard at Rosyth. No one can accuse me of playing to the media or seeking headlines. I would rather play this down, but some things cannot be played down. I refer, first, to the place where the casing for the isotope was discovered and, secondly, to the place where the active source of the isotope was discovered—under the hull of the "Revenge".
It is my considered view, and I choose my words carefully, that someone extremely knowledgeable or very foolish—whether naval or civiliam one cannot tell at this stage—who has access to the hazardous and strictly controlled area involved and who knows how to handle this sensitive resource has been playing the fool. Will the Minister give an assurance that the authorities at Rosyth are not sitting back on their laurels, having discovered the case, but are actively pursuing it and will not rest until the perpetrator of the tomfoolery is caught? That is important to the people within the yard and to my constituents.
I wish to examine some aspects of the relationship between defence expenditure and industry. In percentage terms there is probably a higher concentration of defence expenditure in my area than in that of any other Member. The naval dockyard, Marconi's defence base, a Philips establishment and other attendant organisations are in my constituency. Perhaps I should welcome Government assurances that all this expenditure is going to defence.
It would be an unnatural Member of Parliament who did not want to protect the employment prospects of his constituents at this time, but in my area, and in the country generally, there is too large a commitment in terms of defence expenditure for which we do not get a proper return. We do not get the return in spin-offs. Some of the best industrial and commercial brains are engaged in

defence activities, but the nation does not get a return from it. It is all very well to examine the strategic argument—and it is a valid argument—but we cannot, year in, year out, lock up in defence activities high calibre intellectual manpower that is internationally footloose, without a return either in sales of defence equipment or, to put it crudely, in other activities elsewhere.
I do not accept the Minister's assurances on defence expenditure. I do not accept that the Ministry of Defence is good at the project management of these defence expenditures, partly because of Chevaline. If there is a lesson to be learnt from Chevaline, it is in what the Secretary of State said in July last year. He said that its cost had gone bananas. The House of Commons had to wait almost 10 years before discovering what was going on. That is not an anti-Government argument. It is certainly not a pro-Labour Party argument. I congratulated the then Secretary of State for Defence on coming to the House in 1980 and telling us what had happend about Chevaline. When he mentioned it I thought he was referring to a French film star, until someone told me that we were updating Polaris.
The Minister said that there had been some successful firings of the Chevaline missile. That has taken more than 10 years—or almost 15 years when the original reserch is added—and the missile is not even going into a submarine. That is a long lead time. Now we are embarking, supposedly, on either the C4 or the D5 Trident system. Is it really necessary for us to take the decision on Trident now? What is the time scale? I am not in favour of taking the decision on Trident. I do not believe that the British economy can stand it. The Government have made out the case for adherence to an independent strategic nuclear deterrent, but not necessarily the case for doing it now.
I know that the boats have a restricted life span, but that restricted life span takes us into the 1990s. If the Minister is saying that the Government are to introduce Chevaline and phase the missiles into existing boats, does that not give us a longer time scale than the one that the Government are imposing?
There is an inter-relationship between industry and military decisions, particularly naval decisions. British Shipbuilders Ltd. is trying to negotiate agreed redundancies in naval yards. The Trident decision is holding up the long-term programme for British Shipbuilders. That is harmful to our economy. I plead with the Government to recognise that if we are to embark on large naval and military expenditure there must be a considerable tightening up of project management at the Ministry of Defence.
There is no point in the Government's embarking upon research projects that will lead eventually to £500 million, £600 million or £1 billion development expenditure, and then production expenditure, and tell the House only when the development stage is reached. The House needs much more information and more frank discussion about the number of projects embarked upon that may add up to the £30 million, £40 million, £50 million or £100 million plus. The whole area of defence expenditure and the way in which it is reported to the House has to be analysed, for the sake of the nation, the Ministry of Defence and the House.
Like all hon. Members, I hope that the negotiations at Geneva will be put on a more successful footing. I


recognise that Britain has commitments. They are valid commitments that must be adhered to so far as is possible within the resources of our economy.
I end on a note of warning. We shall do NATO and the Western alliance no service if we cripple our economy by exorbitant expenditure on defence, which is uncontrolled or little controlled.

Mr. Churchill: It is a pleasure to be called after the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas), who speaks so much sound sense about defence. That is a rarity these days on the Labour Benches.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) for giving us the opportunity to debate defence, particularly the cuts in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Those cuts are disturbing not only to hon. Members who take a close interest in defence, but to the millions of people who, in part at least, when voting Conservative at the last general election did so because of our commitment to strengthening our defences. Today they are puzzled and appalled by what is happening.
Service manpower has been cut by 22,000 across the board—in the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. There is talk of a further strengthening of the Territorial Army, but that will not happen until much later in the decade, and definitely there will be a substantial gap. Thirty two ships of the Royal Navy are to be prematurely consigned to the scrap heap and 56 Vulcans of the Royal Air Force are to be prematurely retired from service next year.
On this, the Government's policy is gravely out of line with that of our principal ally across the Atlantic. The United States is so deeply concerned about the unfavourable military balance, especially on and beneath the high seas, that it is dusting off and taking out of mothballs even ancient battleships from the Second World War which it believes to be priceless assets as platforms on which to place modern equipment and missiles. The United States is pursuing this policy not only at sea but in the air. While Ministers in Britain think nothing of consigning the Vulcans to the rubbish dump, the Americans take a totally different attitude with their B52 bombers which are precisely the same age—it is 21 years since both aircraft entered service with the air forces of the United States and the United Kingdom. Our Vulcans are structurally every bit as sound as the B52s. However, the Americans will use them as cruise missile carriers into the mid 1990s. How can the Government feel that they are so well endowed in defence resources that they can profligately consign 32 Royal Navy ships and 56 Vulcan bombers to the rubbish heap? Even the United States, with its vast resources, feels that they are priceless platforms for positioning new equipment, which would cost much more to replace.
It is significant that the Minister was unable to tell us the price of the Type 23 frigate. That was the anvil on which, in last year's defence debate, the Secretary of State decided to smash the dockyard that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham is doing all he can to save, and to scrap the surface fleet as we know it. We were assured that the Type 23 would cost less than the Leander mid-life refit of £70 million. It is unbelievable that the Government

did not cost the Type 23 in detail before coming to the House with such a decision. Not only the older assets of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are being sent prematurely to the knacker's yard. The pride of the Royal Navy's surface fleet, "Invincible", is going, too. Under pressure from Treasury Ministers and knights of the Treasury, the Secretary of State has been hawking it round the world trying to flog it to the best bidder, although it is acknowledged that the threat at sea—particularly that from submarines—has never been greater.
"Invincible" was conceived of as one of three ships. One ship was to be in dock while two were on station. One ship was to keep sea lanes open in the north Atlantic and the other was to keep them open in, perhaps, the Indian Ocean. There will now be one Invincible class ship on station at any given moment. I remain profoundly unconvinced of the wisdom of the decision to sell such an invaluable asset to the Royal Australian Navy at a knockdown price that is far below the cost of replacement if we were to decide that we did, after all, need three vessels.

Sir Frederick Burden: My hon. Friend will recall that I asked several pertinent questions about the cost relating to "Invincible". In 39 minutes, the Minister did not answer them.

Mr. Blaker: rose——

Mr. Churchill: Perhaps the Minister wishes to answer them.

Mr. Blaker: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) will count the number of times that I gave way. That makes a bit of difference to the length of my speech.

Mr. Churchill: Not only the Royal Navy has suffered such grievous depredations. The Royal Air Force has suffered, too. It is being subjected to fierce cuts. In Opposition, the Conservative Party was forthright in its condemnation of the Labour Government for the lack of adequate air defence. At that time, there were only 70 aircraft for the air defence of the United Kingdom—five Phantom squadrons and two Lightning squadrons. Sadly, three years after the Conservative Party came to office that remains the situation. The brave promise made when we came to office—that we would take two squadrons of Lightnings out of their crates—has long since gone by the board. We are still waiting for the Hawk trainer aircraft to be armed. I wholly endorse the decision taken, but how much longer must we wait before all the Hawk trainers are armed with Sidewinder missiles?

Mr. Bill Walker: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Air Force not only lacks hardware but inherited a lack of fast jet pilots? It takes a long time to train such pilots. It takes a minimum of three years to train a chap and to put him into squadron service. With the best will in the world, the Royal Air Force could not have made up the shortfall since the Conservative Party came into office.

Mr. Churchill: I do not wish to take issue with my hon. Friend, because he knows a great deal about the workings of the Royal Air Force. However, many highly capable, recently trained fast jet pilots baled out of the Royal Air Force when the Labour Government were in office. They could have been invited to return if we had had the hardware. Air defence is not alone in not being strengthened. Our strike capability is suffering similarly.
The Tornado programme is being cut and the rate of delivery is being reduced by about 20 units per annum. That will add substantially to the cost. What is not produced this year will come into service three years later. I shall be surprised if costs do not escalate by about 50 per cent.

Mr. Robert Atkins: rose——

Mr. Churchill: I am afraid that this is the last time that I shall give way.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend knows that Tornado is dear to both our hearts. Does not my hon. Friend agree that, even when the Tornado comes into full service, it will be very vulnerable unless an urgent decision is taken on some sort of anti-radar device, such as HARM?

Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend is correct. It grieves me that not only former Labour Ministers, but even Ministers in this Administration should so blatantly mislead the public by describing Tornado as a replacement for the Vulcan. Even from the three Royal Air Force clutch aerodromes in West Germany, the Tornado could not undertake the missions accomplished by Vulcans from their bases in Lincolnshire. The Tornado is incapable of striking at the Soviet heartland and recovering at a NATO base. Therefore, it is quite misleading to describe the Tornado as any replacement for the Vulcan bomber. Under this Administration the United Kingdom is clearly abandoning the contributions that with the Vulcans it has made for the past 20 years or more towards a strategic theatre nuclear war commitment. Traditionally, we have provided one-third of NATO's capability. After the end of next year we shall provide none of that capability. All our long-range theatre nuclear capabilty will be returned to the hands of our American allies.
With such cuts across the whole spectrum of defence, it is evident that the Government's defence policy is gravely adrift. It is not geared to meeting the rapidly mounting Soviet threat. I fear that the Government have forgotten the commitment that we made to the electorate before the last election. We are often told that that commitment was to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms. That is not so. That was the commitment made by the Labour Government. We gave a simple commitment—to strengthen our nation's defences. The Government's cuts in the Army, Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and, above all, in manpower and equipment do not accord with the pledges and commitments that I—as an Opposition spokesman on defence—was then authorised to give.
If there is a reason for that, it can be found in a written reply given on 8 February by a Treasury Minister who makes it clear that this year the Government are devoting 10-3 per cent. of their overall public expenditure to defence. This compares with 15.5 per cent. in the mid-1960s, when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was Prime Minister. It would require a 50 per cent. increase for this Government to give the same priority to defence as was given to it by the Labour Government in the mid-1960s.
One does not even have to go that far back. Even under the most recent Labour Government in 1977–78 the percentage devoted to defence was marginally higher than it is today. So it is useless to say that it cannot be done. It is a question of priority. If the threat is as grave as my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have us believe and, indeed, as the Prime Minister has so eloquently pointed out on repeated occasions, it is high time that resources were provided to match the rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Keith Speed.

Mr. Stan Thorne: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I did not realise that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) had been seeking to catch my eye. I shall call him later because the debate goes on until 7 o'clock, but only 7 o'clock.

Mr. Keith Speed: I shall endeavour to be brief, so that as many hon. Members as possible can get in.
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) on raising what has been a very good debate. I agree with 99.9 per cent. of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) has just said. It is interesting that in the last three defence debates—in May and July of last year and again today—we have had robust statements criticising the cutback in our maritime effort. In the last major defence debate two former Prime Ministers shared in the criticisms, yet I have a feeling that there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear.
If in May 1979 there had been a different result to the general election and the Labour Party had been returned to power, and had embarked on the cuts in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, on closing Chatham, Portsmouth and Gibraltar and, indeed, on the cuts in the Army and in the Royal Marines as well, I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench would have been as vociferous as are my hon. Friends on the Back Benches in opposing the cuts.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for what he said about the cruise missile. I am aware that we have bar-mounted torpedo tubes in our nuclear submarines. Clearly we could not follow the American example there. I would ask my hon. Friend to consider this. After the war new sections were put in the A class and the T class submarines when they were extensively modernised. It is not impossible to consider doing a similar type of installation so that vertical launchers for the Tomahawk cruise missile could be added to existing submarines. They do not necessarily have to be nuclear submarines. There could be considerable advantages in mounting these missiles in conventional submarines which, as my hon. Friend and the House will know, are extremely qui[et, indeed, quieter than nuclear submarines.
We are also talking about replacing Polaris in the 1990s. I hope that we have a submarine building programme between now and then, both for the 2,400 class—I am getting more and more concerned about the deathly silence that is descending upon that project—and for the Trafalgar class, as well as what follows that on the SSNs. Ab initio, as it were, we might have a design section again for vertical launchers for the Tomahawk missile. In range, the Tomahawk is not that far away from the range of the Polaris missile. In the Royal Navy we do not have the same need for a long range as they do in the United States navy.
There have been significant developments in general dynamics and the United States Navy is going ahead with


the vertically-launched Tomahawk missile, which it was not doing two years ago. Before we finally go nap on Trident—if we go for Trident I agree that it must be the D5—we must make a long, hard examination. I remind my hon. Friend that no less a person than the Prime Minister, not once but twice in 1980, said that we were going ahead with Trident on the basis that we would not in so doing be cutting back on our conventional forces. I agree entirely. Quite rightly, the Prime Minister said that in a letter to President Carter and she repeated it at the Conservative Party conference in the autumn of that year. Many of us are concerned that we are losing a conventional capability; whether it is through Trident, through the Treasury or whatever, we know not at this stage, but we are concerned.
Mention has been made of the problems faced by the Royal Air Force. I join with my hon. Friends who are getting worried about what has happened to the Hawk Sidewinder programme. Indeed, what about the operational flying hours of pilots? Reference has been made to the amount of equipment, but when we have the pilots they are bumping along pretty well near the bottom of the NATO minimum requirement. There is no question of safety involved.

Mr. Blaker: I think that it would be helpful if I said something about the Hawk Sidewinder programme. That has not been delayed. It is going according to plan.

Mr. Speed: What we should like to know is when that programme will be completed. Following that, there is considerable concern about flying hours for pilots, particularly jet fighter pilots.
The cutbacks in the Royal Navy have been referred to many times this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham mentioned "Dreadnought". I believe that I am right in saying that if it had been refitted it would have continued until the latter part of the decade. With "Dreadnought" going, this means that effectively our SSN force will be reduced from 16, when the others are completed, to 15. It has been announced that tenders will be sought for SSN number 17, but that will still bring us down to 16 completed. Presumably in due course number 18 will have to be built. As has already been pointed out, there is far too great a time delay in the building of these submarines.
Many of us are worried about the capacity to build submarines. I do not think that Vickers can expand its capacity because it has problems, as my hon. Friend will know, at Barrow in building Trident submarines unless extensive capital works are done. The alternative is that the line might be opened to Cammell Laird, which I believe will not happen.

Sir Frederick Burden: If there is a doubt about the building of patrol submarines, Chatham was one of the major bases for building submarines. It built the Oberon class and it has the facility still so to do. That is another reason for keeping Chatham.

Mr. Speed: My hon. Friend was anticipating me. What worries me is that we must have a date for the order of number 18 to maintain the 17 that have been promised with "Dreadnought" going. I am worried about "Valiant" and "Warspite"; are they to continue through the decade? If not, we need to have order dates for number 19 and

number 20. Anyway, 17 is a reduction on what was originally planned. Let us not pretend that that is a bonus, because it is not. Where will the capacity be for the 2,400. Will it be at Scotts on Clydeside? If it is, fine. Is a prototype to be built at Vickers? Has Vickers the capacity? Just as in the refitting at Devonport, in capacity we are getting ourselves in a right old muddle.
We have got ourselves into an even bigger muddle over modernisation. I do not apologise to my hon. Friend for returning to it. It is no good arguing, as he does, that with new ships coming along—what is called a "short-lifing" policy technically—we need not worry about mid-life modernisation. A short-life policy depends, as the dockyard study made clear in the appendix, on a constant stream of orders, so that after 10 or 12 years a ship is scrapped and replaced by new ships with modern sensors, modern electronic warfare equipment and modern weapons.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has told us that 15 ships have been ordered by the Government since they took office in May 1979. It is my recollection that the 15 ships consist of four minesweepers, two offshore patrol vessels, five Hong Kong patrol craft, two Type 22 frigates and two nuclear submarines. The critical ships are the two Type 22 frigates. However, that ordering programme is not good enough for a short-life programme until the Type 23 frigate appears, coupled with the possibility of one further Type 22 frigate being altered. We are stacking up a load of trouble in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when all the surface ships of the Royal Navy will be obsolete and dangerous in which to go to sea.
It is no good embarking upon a short-life programme unless there is an ordering programme that matches it. I have heard nothing in this debate, in answers to questions that I have tabled or in any statement made on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, to suggest that there is such an ordering programme. I beg my hon. Friend the Minister of State to understand that this is desperately important. It is something that is understood by the Dutch, the Americans and the Germans. I sincerely hope that we understand it, or are we the only major NATO navy that is in step while everyone else is wrong? I am sure that that cannot be right.
Mention has been made of HMS "Endurance". It has a massive defence capability but that is not all. It represents the White Ensign, the United Kingdom and this honourable House in a far-flung part of the world of immense strategic importance for the future. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House happen to hold it dear to their hearts. Is it suggested that we cannot afford to spend £3 billion to £3.5 billion gross? I estimate that the money that we have put into the De Lorean company would keep "Endurance" going for about 30 years. Perhaps we have our priorities wrong.
I understand that HMS "Speedy" is to be scrapped after two years in service. This is a personal issue because of my name. I understand that it is not to be sold to a foreign navy. If we are to find reasons for scrapping the vessel, let us find accurate ones. It came out on the tapes that the reason for scrapping was the vessel's unsuitability for use in the North Sea. I do not know what has happened since I was in her a year ago doing 42 knots in a force 9 to 10 gale in the Firth of Forth. I know of no other surface warship anywhere in the world that can do that speed in that sort of storm. I believe that the reason is purely financial. It is a great pity.
The one criticism that I have of HMS "Speedy", which is an excellent pursuit vessel for offshore oil protection, or for fishery protection, is her relatively limited endurance, which is about 24 hours. However, I do not believe that she is unsuitable for use in heavy weather. That is certainly not so in my experience or that of the crew, with whom I spoke at great length when I spent 12 interesting hours at sea in her in extremely rough and hazardous weather conditions.
We started so well about two and a half years ago in stopping the haemorrhage of skilled manpower from our Armed Services. At a time when my hon. Friend the Minister of State admits that the threat of NATO has never been greater, we now appear to be jeopardising our national security for what I can only describe as a cash register defence policy. This causes me great sadness. It is wrong and I hope that even at this late stage my right hon. and hon. Friends, whose hearts I know are in the right place, will do their best to put things right.

Mr. Stan Thorne: It is not my intention to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). The hon. Gentleman illustrated that there are some major divisions of opinion on the Conservative Benches about the expenditures that should take place and the types of weapons that we should have.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) said during an intervention that expenditure on Trident would be less than the expenditure on Tornado, implying that the Government might seriously consider the advantages to be gained from Trident on the basis of pounds and pence as opposed to those to be derived from the Tornado project.
British Aerospace workers at Preston will be interested to learn of that suggestion. I do not know whether it is any more than a suggestion and I do not know what influence the hon. Gentleman has in Government circles on decisions of that nature. He indicates that he has little or none. It may be that Trident will go alongside Tornado as part of the Government's future defence plan. We have not heard—I accept that this may have been dealt with when I was not in the Chamber—whether the Trident project will intervene with the P110. We do not know about the development prospects that will arise from that development.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's sudden interest in the P110 project. When I asked about it in a question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces the hon. Gentleman also caught Mr. Speaker's eye and asked a similar supplementary question. The response to the hon. Gentleman's question was somewhat different from that which mine produced. The unpopularity of his statements is significant, and the work force of British Aerospace at Preston intensely dislike the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the project and those who worked on it.

Mr. Thorne: I have no control over the interpretations that are placed on my remarks by the Government Front Bench or by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). I had a meeting with British Aerospace workers and I took on board their argument that if conventional weapons are to be produced they should be produced by British workers in British factories rather than be imported. I agree with that point of view.
Defence now means defence against a nuclear attack. The gentleman who produced the document "When the Wind Blows"—I think that it was sent to all hon. Members—did a great service to the House and to the public, who may subsequently have the opportunity of reading the book. It spells out in graphic terms the ridiculous deception that is being played on the British people. I refer to the argument that there is a defence against nuclear weapons.
The growth of CND is relevant to the argument that there is a defence against nuclear attack. Why has there been such a major growth in CND membership over the past two or three years, especially during the past year? It seems that there are certain simple explanations. Many more people are becoming aware that either of the two super powers would be able to disintegrate the world, to smash it into smithereens. The possibilities of life would be non-existent should a nuclear war take place. Most people—I am sure that this applies to everyone in the House—want to live.
I have recently had the privilege of being presented with a granddaughter for the first time. One immediately thinks, without being emotional or sentimental about the matter, about the baby's prospects for the future. Many young people pose the issue in precisely that way. In spite of unemployment and the absence of opportunities in education and other spheres, they want to live. For them, nuclear weapons represent the only real major threat to the perpetuation of their lives. That is the reason for the growth of the CND movement.
Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches seem, from time to time, to subscribe to the notion that CND is, in some way, a Communist plot. We should read carefully the names of the leaders of the CND, the nature of the organisations that contribute to it, the membership that it attracts and the number of statements made by Church leaders in Britain which show their great concern about the threat of nuclear war and the need for people to be conscious of, and responsible for, their actions in this respect.
From time to time Church leaders will make a point in their sermons of referring to this problem. It is an inescapable problem for those who claim to be Christians.

Mr. Trippier: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of reading the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primate of All England, who supports the Government's strategy for an independent strategic nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Thorne: I did not say that all Church leaders subscribed to the idea of unilateral nuclear disarmament. I was merely referring to the more enlightened leaders of the Church community. I should not like to name names, but we are all aware of the role played by Canon Collins, lately of St. Paul's, among others, with regard to nuclear weapons.
More importantly, what disturbed people recently were the statements by the Pentagon about the possibility of a theatre nuclear war and the prospect of a victory in that war. There is no doubt in most people's minds to which theatre the Pentagon is referring. It is Europe. The very notion that people can contemplate a nuclear war in which they expect a victory means that the whole concept of the deterrent argument is finally dead. No longer do those who advocate nuclear weapons and their development pretend that there is any deterrent left.
I know that hon. Members on the Conservative Benches are anxious to return to their disagreements among themselves about what sort of weaponry we should be developing. However, on the Labour side of the Chamber there is an increasing awareness that the whole campaign against nuclear weapons must be developed and that the growth in demand for unilateral nuclear disarmament must be encouraged.
On Tuesday of last week a parliamentary Labour group of the CND was formed. I am pleased to tell the House that there are now 61 Labour MPs who have joined that group, and I am optimistic that that will increase to three figures in the next two or three weeks. We will represent a considerable force of opinion in this country which mobilises behind the banner of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
I am under no illusion about the prospect of the Government taking that message on board, in spite of the increasing numbers anxious to see a programme of this sort pursued. Only when we have a Labour Government, who will inevitably follow today's Government in 1983 or 1984, will there be a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. I accept that there are those within the Labour Party, even within its leadership, who are hesitant about whether the country would be prepared to support a party that is openly and clearly advocating disarmament. It is my view that they do not need to concern themselves. The growth of opinion against nuclear weapons and in favour of disarmament is there and is inescapable. Within various local authorities, in the council chambers there have been debates about making particular towns or cities nuclear-free zones. The use of that approach will increase over the next year or so.
It is also apparent that within Europe the movement to make Europe a nuclear-free zone is on the increase, in spite of the references by the Minister of State to the Socialist Foreign Minister of France. In that country opinions grow daily in favour of the need for a nuclear-free zone in Europe. I have no doubt that, because of the hysteria that emanates from the Pentagon, because of the political situation in Europe and because of the cold war and failure of this House to ensure that the foreign policy that was being pursued by a British Government would be likely to contribute to the ending of the cold war, the move for nuclear disarmament will increase.
In all these circumstances, there will be a growth in the numbers of those who believe that the only way to defend their countries, whether Britain, France or any other part of Europe, is not through the development of more and more horrific nuclear weapons, but on the basis of general nuclear disarmament. In that regard Britain is in a particularly favourable position to make a significant contribution. A decision by Britain to pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament would mean that the political aspects of nuclear weaponry throughout the world would be transformed. The parties involved in decision-making about the development of nuclear weapons would be forced to take heed.

Mr. Newens: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 184.

Division No. 67]
[7 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McDonald, DrOonagh


Beith, A.J.
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
McNally, Thomas


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Meacher, Michael


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Mikardo,lan


Buchan, Norman
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton ltchen)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P]
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Morton,George


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cowans, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cox.T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Crawshaw, Richard
Palmer, Arthur


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Park, George


Dalyell, Tam
Pavitt, Laurie


Davidson, Arthur
Pitt, WilliamHenry


Davies, RtHonDenzil (L'lli)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dixon, Donald
Radice, Giles


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Roper, John


English, Michael
Ryman, John


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, John (Newton)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Flannery, Martin
Silkin, RtHon J. (Deptford)


Foulkes, George
Soley, Clive


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Stallard, A.W.


George, Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Stoddart, David


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Straw, Jack


Hardy, Peter
Thomas, Jeffrey(Abertillery)


Harrison, RtHonWalter
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Home Robertson, John
Tinn, James


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E,
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Wainwright, E(Dearne V)


Janner, HonGreville
Wainwright, R.(ColneV)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Whitlock, William


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Winnick, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Kerr, Russell
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. Stanley Newens and


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)
Dr. John Gilbert.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Alison, Rt HonMichael
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Churchill, W.S.


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Cope, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Costain, SirAlbert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Crouch, David


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Berry, HonAnthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.


Biffen, RtHon John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Blaker, Peter
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Boscawen, HonRobert
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Boyson, DrRhodes
Emery, Sir Peter


Braine, SirBernard
Eyre, Reginald


Bright, Graham
Faith, MrsSheila


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Antony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Budgen, Nick
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Burden, SirFrederick
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Goodhew, SirVictor






Goodlad, Alastair
Neubert, Michael


Gow, Ian
Newton, Tony


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Gray, Hamish
Osborn, John


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)
Page, Richard (SWHerts)


Grist, Ian
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Patten, John(Oxford)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Percival, Sirlan


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pollock, Alexander


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hayhoe, Barney
Proctor, K.Harvey


Heddle, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt. Hon.Timothy


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rathbone.Tim


Hill, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Ridley, HonNicholas


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Rossi, Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sainsbury, HonTimothy


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Hurd, Rt. Hon Douglas
Scott, Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Silvester, Fred


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kershaw, SirAnthony
Speed, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom
Speller, Tony


Lamont, Norman
Spence, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Squire, Robin


Lee, John
Stainton, Keith


LeMarchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, lvor


Lennox-Boyd, HonMark
Stanley, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Loveridge, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Luce, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Thorne, Neil(llfordSouth)


Macfarlane, Neil
Thornton, Malcolm


MacGregor, John
Townend, John(Bridlington)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Trippier, David


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Vaughan, DrGerard


Major, John
Viggers, Peter


Marlow, Antony
Waddington, David


Mates, Michael
Wakeham, John


Mather, Carol
Walker, B.(Perth)


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wall, SirPatrick


Mayhew, Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watson, John


Miller.Hal(B'grove)
Wells, Bowen


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Wheeler, John


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Whitelaw, Rt HonWilliam


Moate, Roger
Wickenden, Keith


Moore, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, HonC.(Devizes)
Wilkinson, John


Mudd, David
Wolfson, Mark


Murphy, Christopher
Young, SirGeorge(Action)


Myles, David



Neale, Gerrard
Tellers for the Noes:


Needham, Richard
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government Business).

Orders of the Day — Hops Marketing Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment

Orders of the Day — House of Commons (Supply Procedure)

[Relevant document: First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), Session 1980ߝ81, (House of Commons Paper No. 118).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The central purpose of tonight's debate is to give hon. Members an opportunity to express their views on this first report of the Select Committee on Supply procedure. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to join me in thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and his Committee for their hard work and their thoughtful and valuable contribution, which has made this debate possible. I feel sure that it is right that I should tonight take the views of the House fully into account before coming to a final decision on the terms of the motions that I shall bring forward in due course and which are necessary to implement such of the Committee's recommendations and changes as the Government believe appropriate and acceptable to the House.
I hope, nevertheless, that it will be helpful if at the outset I briefly remind the House of the background of the Committee's proposals, and demonstrate—in a provisional way—the Government's initial reactions. In the first place, I believe it to be common ground on both sides of the House that our existing procedures for the control of Supply and, in particular, for dealing with Main and Supplementary Estimates are inadequate in important respects and in need of reform.
That form and substance have long since gone their separate ways is obvious by the fact that Supply days are rarely concerned with matters of Supply, and that debates on Consolidated Fund Bills have generally very little, if anything, to do with those particular Bills. More than that, the House has at present little or no opportunity of debating departmental Estimates in any structured way. This widespread dissatisfaction—both inside and outside the House—with existing Supply procedures was, of course, the reason behind the Government's decision in 1980 to propose the establishment of the Select Committee. The Committee's main recommendations are set out in paragraph 102 of its report. As the House will be aware, they are in summary that there should in future be eight annual Estimates days on the Floor of the House devoted to the consideration of Main and Supplementary Estimates, and that an Estimates Business Committee should be appointed to recommend the particular Estimates to be debated on such days and the allocation of time.
It is also proposed that the present Second Reading debates on Consolidated Fund Bills should be replaced by an appropriate allocation of additional time to private Members, and that the present 29 so-called Supply days should be replaced by 19 Opposition days, and certain business traditionally taken in Supply time transferred to Government time. I refer to debates on the armed services, EEC matters, and so forth. As already in the evidence that Ministers have given to the Committee, the Government support the broad aim of those proposals.
In particular, the Government share the Committee's view that it is desirable that the House should be able to

devote more time on the Floor to the debate of Main and Supplementary Estimates; that that additional time should take the form of a number of Estimates days structured in such a way as to give priority to the debate of those Estimates that the House considers to be of especial importance; that the departmental Select Committees have an important advisory role to play in that process of selection; that the presently misleading concept of "Supply days" should be replaced by an appropriate number of Opposition days; and that the real purpose of debates on Second Readings of Consolidated Fund Bills should be acknowledged by substituting for them a compensating addition to private Members' time.
In considering the detailed recommendations made in the report, there are, I believe, certain general considerations and constraints that the House will wish to bear in mind. In the first place, I remind the House that whatever changes are made in our Supply procedures we need, as the Committee recognises, to ensure that they do not obstruct the mechanism whereby essential Supply is regularly granted to a Government, provided it has the support of the House. That is a continuing necessity, with regular financial and practical deadlines. The timing of the new Estimates days would, therefore, need to be flexible. And it would be important to ensure that there was no risk that a debate—which could be subject to last minute rearrangement—could impede the flow of money required for public administration. I would accordingly suggest that the timing of such days would need to be at the discretion of the Government.
Secondly, I suggest that it has to be accepted that, while the use to which Supply days and debates on Consolidated Fund Bills are currently put may have little to do with financial control, they nevertheless fulfil important other parliamentary purposes. Supply days may have little to do with Supply, but they obviously have a great deal to do with Opposition time. And the present debates on the Second Readings of Consolidated Fund Bills are important to the work of the House as a whole in providing opportunities for private Members to raise issues of their choice.
As the Committee recognises, it will, therefore, be necessary that any new arrangements should preserve the present de facto use of these procedures, albeit in a less misleading guise. It will also be necessary to preserve as far as possible the present balance in the allocation of time between Government, Opposition and private Members. I should be extremely reluctant to see any significant reduction in the overall amount of time that Back Benchers have to raise matters of constituency or personal concern. I believe that that is the view of the House.
Thirdly, it is obvious that in so far as more time on the Floor is devoted to the consideration of departmental Estimates, that can, in the nature of things, only be at the expense of other business. What we are considering here is largely a question of priorities between competing claims. If the House were to decide that a substantial number of days should be committed in advance, each Session, to the consideration of departmental Estimates, clearly Government business would have to be planned accordingly. The House would wish to find a way of doing that without increasing sitting hours. Some hon. Members might hope that it could be done with a reduction, but that is a refinement. It would depend to a large extent on the number of such days and the size of the legislative programme in a particular Session.
However, as I pointed out to the Committee in evidence, it would be unrealistic to assume, for example, that two or three days at present used for legislation could be used for Estimates debates without a significant increase in the pressures on the parliamentary timetable. Essential Government business would remain essential Government business, and I know that the House understands that. Any new procedure involving a particular number of annual Estimates days would inevitably be experimental. Its success would depend on the importance that individual Members attached to the opportunities for detailed debate of departmental Estimates which these days provided, and on the extent to which it proved possible to structure them in a useful and generally acceptable way.
The Government's provisional view is that the Committee's proposal that there should initially be as many as eight Estimates days would be likely to place unacceptable pressures on other business and on the parliamentary timetable as a whole, and that it would be more appropriate that any change should begin on the basis of three such days annually. I appreciate that that is a big difference, but experience would show whether this reflected the priority that the House attached to these occasions. Whatever number of days is decided upon, time would obviously have to be found for them.
Where any such three extra days, which I have suggested as a beginning, would come from would have to be a matter for further consideration. No doubt hon. Members will express their views on that this evening. Whatever number of days is decided upon as a beginning, time would have to be found for them.

Mr. Frank Hooley: This is a matter not only of the niceties of what the House thinks it should be doing but of our responsibilities to the electorate for scrutinising the way in which its money is being spent. Calculating the number of days that we may be hanging around or that the Government want is one issue. The other is whether we are doing our job for the taxpayers in looking at what the Government are doing with their money.

Mr. Pym: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We set up the Committee because we were not satisfied, any more than the House or people outside, with the way that we were dealing with Supply. It will be helpful to the House if at this stage I give an indication of the Government's initial reactions.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman talked in advance about the possible reaction of the House to future Supply debates; in other words he was making excuses in advance. Will he also recognise that however many days he gives for Supply, the House would be helped if he accepted the strong recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, endorsed by 300 Members on both sides of the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that recommendation, too?

Mr. Pym: That is the subject of consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will make an announcement in due course. I am talking about the initial reaction to the substantial changes proposed by the Select Committee. It is in that spirit that the House will wish to debate the issue. It is wrong to talk about making excuses

in advance. No Leader of the House can make any changes unless the House wants them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
My initial thought is that, on a basis of three Estimates days, if that were to be agreed, Government, Opposition and private Members might each give up a day of their present time. Those Estimates days would no doubt provide additional opportunities for Back Benchers. It might therefore be appropriate if there were some reduction in the time at present allocated to private Members' motions perhaps, for example, two half days. I put that forward as a proposition to be considered. Besides the question of where the necessary time for Estimates days is to come from, there are other aspects of the report that I should like to mention. Obviously, if the House were to adopt procedures to enable hon. Members to undertake on the Floor a detailed analysis of the entire range of departmental Estimates, the House would he able to undertake little else. The problem, therefore, is to find a method of selection, and of determining priorities in the allocation of the available time, that would be accepted by the House as fair and appropriate.
The Committee proposes that the job of recommending to the House the way in which Estimates days should be structured—and incidentally I think that debates on Supplementary Estimates might sometimes turn out to be more effective—should be given to a new Committee, called the Estimates Business Committee.
I am not sure that this is the best way or that it is necessary to have a new Committee. The Select Committee suggests elsewhere in the report that the departmental Select Committees might play an increasing part in the preliminary scrutiny of departmental Estimates and in drawing the attention of the House to particular Main and Supplementary Estimates which the House might want to debate. Clearly if Estimates days were introduced, there would be a greater incentive for Select Committees to give a higher priority to the scrutiny of those Estimates coming within their terms of reference.
That being so, I would have thought that it might be more appropriate if the present Liaison Committee of Select Committee Chairmen were to be entrusted with this task. After all, the departmental Select Committees are all represented there. That seems to be a simpler way. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who is Chairman of the Liaison Committee, has a view about that.
As a further detail about the arrangements for those Estimates days, I wonder if it might be for the convenience of hon. Members if all Divisions on such days were to be taken together at, say, 10 o'clock. That would be contrary to the normal practice of the House, but it could be considered and might commend itself to the House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing that Estimates on one subject be debated for an hour and a half and that the Question be put at 10 o'clock after other questions have been debated? Although I can see the advantage of that to hon. Members, it would be breaking the fundamental rule of taking each question separately.

Mr. Pym: I was throwing that out as an idea that hon. Members might like to consider. On an Estimate day there might be a debate on only one Estimate or on two or three Estimates. That would be a matter of negotiation. If there


were more than one, it is for consideration whether the votes should be taken at 10 o'clock, notwithstanding that it would be contrary to normal practice.
The proposed replacement of Supply days with 19 so-called Opposition days is another proposal that would need to be considered in the light of other decisions. All the decisions are interrelated. The number of Estimates days finally agreed is relevant. But if as I suggested earlier, there were three such days, a total of 19 Opposition days would seem in line with an Opposition contribution of one day towards them.
Any changes in the arrangements for Opposition time will clearly require more consultation. But I would regard it as entirely reasonable that any such change should be made only on the clear understanding that the present days traditionally provided from Supply time for discussion of the Armed Services, EEC matters, Select Committee reports and Scottish affairs should in future be provided in Government time. Otherwise the Opposition would be giving up a good deal more than a day, and I believe that the House will wish to preserve the broad balance of time at present existing between the two sides of the House.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: The possibility of three Supply day debates on the Armed Forces being shifted to Government time has given me cause for great concern. Those are traditionally Supply day subjects. Is my right hon. Friend giving a guarantee that if those debates are moved to Government time all Governments will find time for a full debate on the White Paper and three separate debates on each Service, or is he hoping that a Government will be able to find time, should the debates be shifted?

Mr. Pym: All I am saying is that if we make a change from 29 Supply days to 19 Opposition days, the three days now provided by the Opposition as three of their 29 days in future would have to be provided by the Government. That time must be provided by the Government, not by the Opposition. That is part of the bargain in the reduction from 29 Supply days to 19 Opposition days. That matter would have to be considered in the light of the number of days that are chosen. We want to preserve the right balance between both sides of the House, as we have at present.
I also regard it as reasonable that it should be the aim of such discussions that the respective roles of Government and Opposition in decisions affecting the timing of the new Opposition days, and the days allocated to those items of obligatory House business that are at present traditionally taken in Supply time, should, as far as possible, remain the same as at present.
I also suggest that, from the Government viewpoint, there would need to be provision to permit essential Supply business to be taken, when necessary, on Opposition days; and that there should be a convention, as there is at present and has been for a long time, that the designation "Opposition days" need not preclude their exceptional use for general House business—as in the case, for example, of major debates extending over several days.
I want to say something now about the question of any allocation of Opposition time between the official Opposition and the other Opposition parties. This is obviously an important and controversial issue. The Select Committee considered it, and its conclusions are in paragraphs 98 and 99 of the report. Basically, it

recommended no alteration. The present practice has lasted a long time, and the House will no doubt wish to consider very carefully whether change is needed. It is the Government's intention today to give the House an opportunity to express views—before any motions are framed—about this and all other aspects of the report, and I have no doubt that Opposition Members will wish to do so.
As Leader of the House, I have a responsibility in these matters, as I have for almost all matters affecting the arrangements of the House, and I shall of course listen with particular interest to what is said by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Leader of the House agree that paragraph 98 of the Committee's report sets out a possible way of dividing the allocation of Opposition time between the official Opposition and what I shall call the unofficial Opposition? In paragraph 99 we are faced with no counter argument to what the Committee says in paragraph 98, with the conclusion that there should be no change in the present system. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not be led astray, as he was last Thursday by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—an unlikely alliance, if ever there were one—into standing firm on the basis that unofficial Opposition time must continue indefinitely to be a sort of grace and favour of the official Opposition. Will he accept that parliamentary arithmetic is such that that is ceasing to be a tenable proposition?

Mr. Pym: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman will make that case later. I have a responsibility in these matters, as in all matters affecting the House. It is a controversial issue that clearly has to be decided one way or the other. The right hon. Gentleman and his party and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will make their views clear.
I should like to make one final detailed comment. This concerns the recommendations in the report dealing with proceedings on Consolidated Fund Bills and recess motions. These are pre-eminently matters for the House rather than for Ministers. While noting the Committee's view that any more general change in the present two-tier structure for granting money should wait until the completion of the full-scale review of the financial procedures of the House, the Government support the proposal that proceedings on Consolidated Fund Bills should be made formal. For my part, and bearing in mind the additional opportunities for private Members which other recommendations made in the report would provide, I would also have thought that it would be sufficient if, as proposed by he Committee, recess adjournment debates were in future limited to one-and-a-half hours.

Mr. Michael English: The Leader of the House said that, of the three days that he was prepared to concede, one should come out of Back-Bench time, but if he agrees to this recommendation, more than one day of Back-Bench time will have then been lost.

Mr. Pym: I doubt whether that is correct although statistics for recent Sessions might lead one to suppose that it is. This debate, or this series of debates, has progressed over the years from a few minutes to rather a long time. The House must decide. The Committee made a recommendation, and I simply expressed a view that I thought that it had some merit.
As regards the proposed arrangements for the allocation of time to Back-Bench Members in lieu of Second Readings on Consolidated Fund Bills, I have already said that I would hope that any changes should not significantly lessen the total time available. I see some advantage in avoiding all-night sittings on at least some of these occasions, but, as I have said earlier, these are all very much matters for the general convenience of the House. I look forward with particular interest to hearing the views of hon. Members on these aspects of the report.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the House that this report is only part of the general programme of work that the Select Committee has set itself.
The Committee has decided—rightly in my view—that its particular proposals relating to Supply procedure contained in the report before us tonight can be considered in their own right and separately. It has also indicated its intention to examine a number of more general aspects of our financial procedures. In doing so, it will no doubt take into account the inquiry being undertaken by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee into the Armstrong report on the integration of tax and expenditure proposals.
The Government welcome these intentions. As proposed in this report, the Committee has now been reestablished with wider terms of reference. Ministers will continue to give the Committee all possible help in its inquiries.
It remains only for me to express again, on behalf of the House, the traditional but nevertheless genuine appreciation of the great amount of valuable work which has been done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and his Committee in tackling this complex but crucial issue. All its members have served the House well, and I look forward with interest to hearing what right hon. and hon. Members say this evening, whether or not they were members of the Committee. I hope that in due course we can make further progress with these changes at a later stage.

Mr. Michael English: The best way to begin is by reminding the House of something that I was told by an elderly Member when I first came here. He said "Always remember, Michael, that you are speaking for the next debate". That must be true of this debate.
The Leader of the House has said that he will introduce the necessary changes in Standing Orders in the light of our discussions here. I appreciate that, as I am sure does every member of the Committee.
However, there is a further debate. Our main recommendation was that a Procedure Committee should be set up again. That has happened, and we are grateful to the Government for it. The task of revising our financial procedures is too vast to be done in a single Session, and we did not feel that we could attempt it.
Most, if not all, of us thought that we could do certain things and do them fairly quickly. I shall not go into any details here, because I am sure that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will do so far better than I can. However, there is one matter that I wish to mention, and it is the one to which I referred in my intervention. The Committee, by a majority, suggested eight Estimates days. I think we would all accept that that was a first bid.
We might not have said eight. The right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) suggested six, and many of us supported that.
There were alternative numbers of days. Nevertheless, three days, as proposed by Her Majesty's Government, as their response to eight, is, in my view, the smallest possible response. Three per cent. is a familiar figure these days, but in this case it is three days. What is peculiar is that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that that time should be taken in the following manner: one day from the Government, one day from the Opposition—this also effects the minority parties, as though the Government and Opposition were automatically regarded as equal—and from Back-Bench time a single day. That cannot be right. The right hon. Gentleman could have said four days possibly: two Government days, one official Opposition day and one Back-Bench day.
The Committee proposed—it is an open secret that not all of us were completely happy with this—that we should, in effect, curtail the debates on the Consolidated Fond Bill, which are in Back-Bench time. We arrived at a compromise that they should be contracted in time without being abolished. The right hon. Gentleman is agreeing with all that on three separate Consolidated Fund Bills, but one is much bigger than the other two. It relates to the main Estimates and the others to Supplementary Estimates. That is far more in totality, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted in response to my intervention, than a single day for Back-Benchers.
The right hon. Gentleman is saying that most of it should come from Back-Bench time. Perhaps he is making a bid and wants us to respond, so I do so. I do not believe that Back Benchers will accept those three Estimate days in response for more from them than from either the Government or the Official Opposition. Speaking, I believe, for hon. Members on the Opposition Benches of various parties, we do not regard ourselves—in totality a minority in the House—as being obliged to provide an equal share in comparison with the Government. The present 29 Supply days, some of which are used for governing, though not necessarily governmental, purposes, are by no means equal to all the time available to the Government.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was putting in his bid as others have put in their bids. I am sure that he knew what he was doing and expected objections to the precise details of his proposals. Because they are proposals, and because time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak, I repeat only that the main importance of the report is in the matters that it sketches out for this Session's work.
The importance of those matters is in the earlier section, where we make the case for setting up a new Committee. We made a case on several grounds. We mentioned the audit referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). We mentioned the timing of the financial year and the Armstrong report.
We also mentioned the Contingencies Fund, in which I have a particular interest. Once it was a small fund of £100,000. It remained at that figure for the whole of the nineteenth century. It is now 2 per cent. of Supply. I am not sure exactly of the current figure, but it is over £2,000 million. Furthermore, it is not a maximum. It is a rolling figure. As soon as one replaces something by putting it in


the Estimates proper, the fund can be topped up. On occasion, more has been spent than was the theoretical maximum under the law.
The Contingencies Fund has been used for all sorts of interesting purposes. Originally it was to be used for urgent matters—a sudden disaster such as a tidal wave or something of that character. It has been used to replace the Lord Chancellor's robes. That is not a matter that greatly concerns me, but I cannot see the urgency of it. It has also been used without the authority or even the knowledge of the House to create an atomic bomb. That disturbs me. Since the fund has come to be used on a vast scale, almost anything can be done with it without the authority of Parliament.
It is doubtful whether that is legal. The fund can be replenished from the Estimates—the law is clear on that—but nobody explains how it can be spent. In the previous Parliament the Expenditure Committee commissioned a group of lawyers to consider the matter. Half of them said that is was illegal to spend money in that way, whilst the other half said that is was legal. The matter is in doubt. The adviser to our Committee took the view that it was unlawful. We must go further into the matter.
All that goes to the centre of the issue. The basic power of the House is to approve the appropriation of money to the purposes of the Government, which is in the title of the Appropriation Act. I believe that that provision is embodied in all the Commonwealth constitutions. It is written into the American constitution. They all derived it from us.
The power that we gained in the seventeenth century was to approve the main heads of Government expenditure. We have lost that power. We are never allowed to discuss the Appropriation Act when it is a Bill, because we are supposed to have discussed Supply resolutions. We are not allowed to discuss Supply resolutions, because the topics on the days when they are put forward are chosen by the official Opposition. Not only the minority parties, but hon. Members, apart from the Shadow Cabinet, are not allowed to choose the subjects on those days. That is what the Procedure Committee wishes to put right. We wish to provide some days—we shall not argue in detail about the number—when the majority of hon. Members—every hon. Member who is not in the Government, including Government Back Benchers—can discuss whatever they believe to be the detailed topics of interest in public expenditure.
It is only the first small step, but it will restore some control over expenditure to the overwhelming majority of hon. Members. That control has been taken away from us by whoever happens to be the minority in charge of the United Kingdom's Executive.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his kind remarks about me and the work of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply).
The task of parliamentary reform is never easy. The late Richard Crossman's attempts, for example, over morning sittings were abortive. Recently we have had successful innovations, particularly those introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) in the system of departmental Select Committees.
That reform gives us a springboard from which to tackle the most difficult area of all parliamentary reform—financial control and procedure.
We were fortunate in having a Select Committee appointed last Session whose members covered a wide political spectrum, ranging from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), by way of such experts as the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) who is now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Therefore, it was perhaps remarkable that we produced a unanimous report, but I hope, for the same reason, that it will be relatively uncontroversial. Whether that is so will be more apparent by the end of the debate.
I begin by stressing that outside the House there is a widespread belief that Parliament controls the Executive through control of the purse strings. Although it is said that the supply of money shall not be granted until grievances have been heard and redressed, in reality it is virtually impossible for a Back Bencher to debate and vote on a particular item of public expenditure.
The principle of parliamentary control of the Executive in that way is largely a myth. That fact comes out clearly in paragraph 22 of the report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said:
the way in which we fail to examine expenditure in my opinion is a disgrace in a modern Parliament".
The right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton agreed, and said that
the present position, whereby huge sums of money are granted to the Government virtually without debate, is quite intolerable in a democratically elected Parliament".
We further comment:
Government Ministers express similar views in rather more cautious terms".
As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, there is widespread recognition of the fact that the present situation is intolerable and that changes are needed.
How can we establish reasonable scrutiny and control? Our first recommendation is that a new Select Committee should be established to consider the broader questions of financial procedures. It was fortunate in some ways that last year the Select Committee was set up for just one Session. That gave us a deadline and enabled us to advance specific proposals. However, there are many other issues that still need to be examined.
We recommended—I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to this—that the new Select Committee should be established in the new parliamentary Session without delay. I know that it is not my right hon. Friend's fault, but, unfortunately about three or four months of this Session passed before the new Committee was set up. It is therefore questionable whether the Committee that has now been established should be on a sessional basis rather than for the whole Parliament. Otherwise, there is some danger, for one reason or another, we shall again lose three or four months at the beginning of the next Session. I hope that my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider that point.
Our report considers some fundamental reforms of financial precedures. In part II, under that heading, we bring out two very important issues. The first is that there is no parliamentary control over Government borrowing or, indeed, over the creation of money. That is very important. That position may always have existed. When Henry V went to Agincourt, perhaps he did so on borrowed


money to avoid parliamentary control. None the less, that issue is so important today in terms of economic management that we must consider it.
Similarly, the report brings out the important point that, on the expenditure side of the equation, taking public expenditure as 100 per cent., Government expenditure is only 72.4 per cent. However, Supply expenditure is barely half of total Government expenditure. It is, therefore, outside the control of the House of Commons, even in theory. In reality, even that Supply expenditure is not under the control of the House. We need to consider the broader issues of financial control, which the recently established new Select Committee will consider in considerable detail. In other words, this is largely a first step in the right direction of reasserting parliamentary control.
I shall try to outline how the new system might operate. It would be necessary for the Estimates to be considered, and while we in no way rule out their examination by hon. Members individually—that may in practice turn out to be important—we none the less recommend that the system should be examined by the Select Committees concerned with the Departments.
That aspect raised many issues which we thought it right to consider carefully. The first was whether the Select Committee should be empowered to amend the Estimates. We described that aspect during our discussions as "amendability". However, we concluded that that would not be a satisfactory situation and that the Select Committee's role should be advisory rather than functional. Amending the Estimates would be similar to the Government being defeated in Standing Committee on a Bill. Instead of that, the Committee should have the power to recommend. Having done that, the matter would return to the Floor of the House on the Estimate days which we believe the Government ought to make available.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, did we not also have in mind the important consideration that if Select Committees were given the power to amend the temptation for the Government and Opposition Front Benches to pack the Committees with amenable Members might prove irresistible in practice.?

Mr. Higgins: Without being cynical, that consideration was drawn to our attention by those concerned about such a development.
I take up the point made in my right hon. Friend's opening remarks about our proposals for an Estimates Business Committee. We believed that if the Select Committee considered the Estimates and recommended that some should be amended and debated on the Floor of the House, many such recommendations might come before us, and time to consider them would be comparatively limited. Therefore, some process of selection would be needed to determine which should be debated and voted on, although it would be possible for some to be voted on without being debated.
We gave considerable attention to that aspect. My right hon. Friend said this evening that one might perhaps use the Liaison Committee as a means of such selection. With great respect, that is not as satisfactory a solution as the institution that we recommend. There is no reason why members of the Liaison Committee should be particularly expert in deciding what priority should be given to the

debating of Estimates. We gave much thought to that aspect. We envisaged not some grand Committee, hut some modest affair that would merely have the task of selecting which Estimates ought to be debated on the Floor of the House.
The other major issue that concerned us—we deal with it in paragraph 67—was whether amendments or recommendations should be allowed—rather as recommendations are made on the salaries of Members of Parliament—for an increase in the Estimates, as against a decrease. Again our view was not shared by everyone in Committee. We generally believed that it ought not be changed and that the initiative for proposing expenditure, or increases in it, should continue to rest with the Government. On both those points, as a first step, we made a comparatively modest suggestion.
The crucial point, of course, is debating and voting on these matters on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) suggested that hon. Members in Committee considered that the eight Estimates days ought to be advanced. With great respect, we did not take the view that that was somehow an opening bid which would then be negotiated. If I recall correctly, although it may not be in the published record, our general view was that we ought not to do that, but should quote a figure which we thought was genuine and sensible for the House to bear in mind. It was not simply an opening bid.

Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that an amendment was moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). If there was not a formal Division on that, the eight days were carried by the voices, as it were.

Mr. Higgins: The fewer numbers game is obviously something on which a great deal of attention will need to be focused. We advanced the figure of eight, not as an opening bid, but as a reasonable figure. My right hon. Friend has come back this evening with a figure of three—one from each of the interested parties, so to speak, although the total number now available to each of the different parties differs greatly. Therefore, it is a somewhat dubious arithmetical calculation to take an equal number from each of them.
It is clearly not desirable that we should begin with a large number of days and find that the House simply does not use them. That would be an undesirable situation, and therefore I should not necessarily want to say that eight is essential. None the less, it seems that three is a little too low, because much attention will need to be focused on Supplementary Estimates—as many hon. Members said—as well as the Main Estimates. Therefore, we ought to consider this matter further.
When the motions are eventually put down implementing my right hon. Friend's proposals in the light of discussions in the House and elsewhere, no doubt they will be amendable. Since they are matters for the House and not for the Government, they will presumably be on a free vote. We will need to give careful thought to those aspects, because this is obviously a question of quantity rather than something of a qualitative nature.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Expenditure Committees in the past discussed these matters very lightheartedly. A big problem that we faced was to


concentrate the minds of hon. Members attending those debates on discussing these matters in the sort of detail expected from them. The subsequent Expenditure Committee, departmental Committees and others never devoted their attention to considering these matters. That was the great criticism made of them. One can only hope that the situation will change. However, to go for eight is rather ambitious in view of the history that we have observed over previous attempts of this sort.

Mr. Higgins: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I was intending to return to it. It is a matter of opinion. The last thing that we want is to have far too many days and to find that the whole idea is a flop. That would not be in anyone's interest. At the same time, one has to consider—I take the point about timing—that there are Supplementary Estimates and a large number of Main Estimates. This is not a matter of principle. It is a matter of negotiation and further consideration.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, we have suggested that the main Supply day that has become meaningless over the years should be replaced by Opposition days and that specific proposals should be made with regard to Government time. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) about the Armed Forces debate will need to be covered. We have also suggested various changes in private Members' time, which, on balance, will be advantageous. We are left therefore with the proposal that will enable the House of Commons, for the first time in many years, perhaps almost centuries, to examine public expenditure in a reasonable manner and to take specific decisions about it.
There is obviously the real danger, to which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has referred, that the House does not wish to take this opportunity. That is something that we can discover only by trying. I believe that the atmosphere in a number of Select Committees is favourable to the idea of examining Estimates. This would provide hon. Members with the chance to advance their views on general policy, but focused on a specific financial decision on the Floor of the House.
One of the problems connected with Select Committees is that the opportunities for debating the many excellent reports that they produce are small in number. There are, of course, dangers. It is possible that the debates that we would like to devote to the Estimates would become general debates of a Supply day kind. This matter will have to be carefully considered. If, however, the proposals are considered as a whole they will, I hope, be seen as modest. At the same time, I believe that they are fairly radical. They are a first step. They are self-contained. I hope that the House will agree to the proposals and so enable the House to make progress in an area which for too long, has remained unreformed.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I endorse the remarks of the Leader of the House about the work of the Committee and its Chairman, whom I am pleased to follow in this debate. Hon. Members are grateful for the work that has been done. We are also pleased that it is continuing in the form of the Select Committee

considering financial procedures although, as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has stated, it got off to a delayed start.
It is difficult to come to a judgment on some of the issues raised in the main report without the benefit of the advice that will eventually be received from the Select Committee that is now considering financial procedures. There is much more to the issue than appears on the surface in the form of the parliamentary procedures within which it is handled. Hon. Members will want to discuss that matter in much more detail. I intend to devote most of my short speech to one issue, the position of minority parties in relation to Supply time, and I regret that this report should have become involved in the issue.
I wish to refer first, however, to some of the wider questions. The procedures that appear to the world as the means of financial control in this House are used for completely different purposes. They are used to provide time for Opposition parties. They are used to provide time for hon. Members to ventilate grievances. These are legitimate objects. They are not objects, however, for which the procedures, which occupy a great deal of the time of the House, appear to be designed. On the other hand, the House has no alternative procedures for replacing what I might call its lost opportunities to deal with the control of public finance. The House also has no means—it seems never to have had any—of scrutinising some other aspects that are important to financial policy, such as borrowing. As the right hon. Member for Worthing has shown, the House has no mechanism for regulating or scrutinising Government borrowing. Hon. Members must examine carefully our procedures and structure and the manner in which the Civil Service is locked into our procedures.
It is a paradox that real significance is attached to our complicated Supply procedures within every Government Department. The possession of the appropriate bit of paper based on the appropriate Vote in the House is a matter of considerable consequence in Government Departments. The seriousness with which the price of paper is viewed is not related to any serious discussion in this House of the issue to which the paper gives rise and the policies that flow from it. We have an elaborate apparatus that clearly controls how the Civil Service operates but which is not covered on our side by any serious policy discussions on the economic matters involved. This illustrates my belief that the whole process is interlocked: that is why the report of the Select Committee dealing with financial procedures will be so important.
A number of matters within the present report are interesting and worth exploring. The concept of the Estimates Business Committee did not meet with an enthusiastic response from the Leader of the House. It contains, I believe, the seeds of something more promising. It is reasonable that many aspects of our business, including our financial business, should be handled by some kind of business committee. This could go wider than the initial purpose put forward. I am surprised that Back Benchers do not join forces with minority parties to demand procedures for the regulating of business in which they are directly involved.
I do not think that there is a legislative assembly in Europe that does not have some kind of business committee taking the ultimate responsibility for the allocation of time and the arrangement of business. Within the Liaison Committee hon. Members have seen the


growth of a new kind of body that speaks, in certain respects, on behalf of Back Benchers. I do not see it taking the role that the Leader of the House wanted to pass to it in this instance. It illustrates, however, that there are responsibilities that should be exercised by representatives of Back Benchers that do not find a proper place in the usual channels and the more discreet procedures in which we have hitherto engaged.
I was disappointed by the fifth recommendation on increases in expenditure, not because I want to change the basic principle that the Government initiate expenditure but because I believe that debate can be distorted if Opposition parties and Back Benchers cannot be seen to be putting propositions on the table when they are arguing with the Government of the day on a particular matter of expenditure. It is often the case, I have found, in arguments on matters of this kind and in Finance Bill debates that an Opposition party or a Back Bencher want to put forward serious alternatives that involve some reduction in expenditure, some release from present commitments and some increase in other areas. The hon. Member involved is challenged constantly by Ministers who say that he is keen to say that more money should be spent but not prepared to commit himself or that he is always ready to attack the Government's expenditure priorities but not to present his own alternatives.
It is right that Opposition parties and Back Bench Members should be challenged to put their cards on the table if they wish to put forward an alternative strategy for the economy as a whole or some part of it. But the House denies them the opportunity if it does not allow propositions for greater expenditure to be placed on the Order Paper. I do not challenge the general principle that the Government initiate expenditure and come to the House to seek Supply for it. Our debates and procedures should, however, allow alternatives to what the Government propose to he placed upon the table.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman puts forward an attractive idea that has been suggested a number of times in the past. As he will know, when these matters come before the House, the party of which I am proud to be a member looks generally for savings in defence while Conservative Back Benchers look for savings in waste. The alternatives are not so difficult as the hon. Gentleman may think.

Mr. Beith: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by his intervention. It does not challenge the point I was arguing. The extraordinary belief of the dwindling band of hon. Members who belong to the Parliamentary Labour Party that one can raid the defence budget to finance everything under the sun is not a belief that I share. It is not an option. I do believe that the Government have their defence priorities wrong. They should not be buying Trident: there should be greater spending on conventional defence to meet the real threat facing this country and its allies. However, any attempt to advance such arguments in certain of our financial procedures would result in half the argument being allowed but not the other half.
I turn to the recommendation that particularly concerns the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, this important report was marred by an unhelpful excursion into the more controversial area of Opposition time and minority parties. The present system is highly unsatisfactory. The report's

recommendation would impose the same system, backed by all the authority of the Select Committee, on a more limited number of Supply days.
I have dealt with both Labour and Conservative Opposition Chief Whips, and in what I shall say 1 intend no personal attack on any of them. I simply draw attention to some of the difficulties that arise if it is assumed that the right of any other Opposition party to propose a subject for debate is at the discretion of the largest Opposition party. The report seeks to retain and reinforce that assumption in our procedures.
First, if it is accepted that the rights of other Opposition parties are at the discretion of the largest party, it becomes extremely difficult for the smaller parties to obtain time at all. When the Select Committee reported, over a period that extended for more than one Session, only half a day had been granted to any minority Opposition party al all. Furthermore, in the 1980–81 Session, one-half of the one day that the Liberal Party eventually managed to squeeze out of the official Opposition was secured in the two-week spillover period after the Summer Recess, and the other half was not obtained until the 1981–2 Session, so we are in fact running about a whole Session behind in the allocation of Supply time.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman will recollect, as I said earlier, that if Estimate days are available to non-ministerial Members of the House that will include members of the hon. Gentleman's party and arty other minority party. If the system is fair, they will thus acquire some rights that they do not at present have.

Mr. Beith: That may be an attractive argument. but we are talking about two different things. One is the important right of Back Benchers to have access to the time of the House, a principle to which the House has not always given sufficient attention and which I support. Secondly, however, there is the right of parties other than the largest Opposition party to put propositions before the House. That is assumed by the Select Committee report not to be a right at all but a matter for the choice and discretion of the largest Opposition party.
Experience shows how difficult it is to have that discretion exercised in favour of a smaller party, even when it has significant representation in the House. Moreover, because the matter is assumed to be at the discretion of the largest Opposition party, the minority party is plainly open to pressure. Any representative of a minority party who goes to the largest Opposition party and suggests that it is time that his party had some tiny element of the Supply time at the larger party's disposal may find himself being told that it depends upon the issue that his party wishes to raise.
At any given time, there may be issues which the largest Opposition party does not wish to be debated at all. It is a fallacy to suppose that the official Opposition always wish to have everything on the table and every possible issue raised. There may be some issues on which they are not at all keen. To take a hypothetical example, there was a long period when the Labour Party did not wish to debate Polaris or the Chevaline project through which the Labour Government modernised Polaris. One understands Labour Members' feelings, but the fact remains that, for reasons of their own, they did not wish certain subjects to be debated at that time.

Mr. Hooley: The hon. Gentleman's example is very peculiar. As he well knows, defence is debated year after year, so it was open to anybody at that time to raise the matter of Polaris, Chevaline or anything else.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should know that there was no debate on Trident and the replacement of Polaris until, interestingly enough, the Liberal Party secured a Consolidated Fund debate in the early hours of the morning, having attempted to secure such a debate for about 18 months. Nevertheless, I said that my example was hypothetical. No doubt hon. Members can think of other subjects which the largest Opposition party at any particular time may not have wished to be discussed in a debate led by a particular minority party or indeed at all, or subjects that it did not wish to be debated until it was ready to agree on its own policy.
I make that point to emphasise that it is not a happy position for a minority party to have to ask for some of a larger party's time for a debate that the larger party may not necessarily welcome.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I have tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. He gives the impression that the Labour Opposition have somehow coerced the Liberal minority party in the selection of subjects for debate. I have investigated the way in which the Liberals actually used the time made available to them. On 26 November 1981, they chose law and order and interest rates. On 1 July 1980, they chose prices and incomes policy. I cannot imagine any Labour Opposition taking exception to a debate on issues of that nature.

Mr. Beith: It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said. Incidentally, the interval between the two dates he quoted is significant and I hope that the House will take note of it. We have it on the authority of the Labour Front Bench that no Supply day debate was given to the Liberal Party between July 1980 and November 1981.
As I have said, I have dealt with both Labour and Conservative Chief Whips. I wish neither to break any confidences of the exchanges that I had with them nor to criticise individuals to develop the argument—which I am sure that in their quieter moments they would accept as reasonable—that minority parties can be put under unreasonable pressure if they are dependent on another party for debating time. I put the argument another way. Can anyone imagine the official Opposition going to the Government to ask for Supply days on the basis that the Government could ask what they proposed to debate, and decide their response according to whether or not they approved the subject?
We want the same relationship with the Government as the official Opposition already have. We want a free choice of a reasonable amount of time relative to our strength in the House, or whatever other criterion is recognised as relevant, and to have free use of that time within the same limitations as any other party.
By what right is the allocation of time left entirely to the discretion of the largest of the Opposition parties? The official Opposition may be less and less willing to exercise that discretion in our favour if under these proposals they have to part with a larger fraction of a smaller total. Technically, the Opposition are not intended to lose as a result of the proposals, because what is removed from

Supply time, which becomes Opposition time, is time that is already allocated in various ways. Nevertheless I anticipate that an Opposition Chief Whip, from whatever party, will argue that he would have only 19 days in which to raise debates, and that he will therefore allocate to the minority party a still smaller fraction than he did on previous occasions when the minority party Whip spoke to him. That is not a satisfactory way of ensuring that the rights of minority parties are dealt with. It is not a satisfactory basis on which minority parties can have the freedom to put forward their proposals and arguments. That position will look increasingly unrealistic if the debate in the country is a three-way debate rather than the two-way debate that some hon. Members seek to preserve, despite what is happening outside. It will be an unrealistic House of Commons that approaches the next general election if it preserves the present arrangement of Government and Opposition, which does not reflect the three or more choices that the public are exercising.
The Leader of the House recognised that this was a controversial issue, on which there are strong feelings, and a matter of interest and legitimate concern to him as Leader of the House and to many parties. I do not wish to detract in any way from the arguments advancing the other purposes served by the report. The report serves the important purpose of gaining more financial scrutiny in the House. Nevertheless, the minority parties will not surrender the fundamental point that we should have the right to exercise our freedoms in the House.
No doubt the official Opposition, the largest of the Opposition groups, will argue later that they must examine carefully what happens to Opposition time. That time is not Labour Party time, but time available to all who wish to challenge the Government's view. Parties other than the Labour Party challenge that view. They are entitled to freedoms in the House as much as anybody else.

Mr. Edward du Cann: This is an important debate and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right to give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to express a view upon Supply. He made a specific suggestion about the Liaison Committee of which I have the honour, for the time being, to be chairman. Of course, I shall ensure that his view is considered.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said about the work of the Liaison Committee in general and the need for somebody in the House to have the responsibility of expressing the view of Back Benchers. Many of us have seen that need and for that reason we thought it appropriate to have conversations between the Parliamentary Labour Party and the 1922 Committee. I should like to believe that the discussions have made real advances in the conditions of Members over a long period.
I refer to the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the part that the Liaison Committee might play in procedure. Perhaps what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said is right and perhaps the suggestion in the report is a better suggestion. We shall see.
I wish to speak about only one matter. There is and should be only one matter of importance in the debate. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed talked about the time that minority parties might have for debate. The


position of the parties has changed since the report was published. The numbers in the SDP have changed and perhaps these matters should be reconsidered. That which unites Back Benchers is perhaps more important than what is to the SDP and the Liberal Party a crucial matter in relation to time allowed for debates and more important than petty sectional party interests. We are all party men and proud of it, but we are parliamentarians first.

Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Member for Tauntom (Mr. du Cann) has done great service to the House in his work on Estimates, expenditure and the conditions of Members. He might wish to reflect a little on what he said about pettiness. Surely the House must be the forum for the whole nation. It must be able to reflect the debate taking place in the country. As the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, it must be right to look again at the issue. It is not a minor issue but a major issue for many millions of people outside the House.

Mr. du Cann: The right hon. Gentleman should not allow his new-found ambition for his new-found party to mislead his judgment. He will have plenty of opportunities to make that point and others. Nothing matters more to us, as the trustees of the nation that we are privileged to serve, than to see that Supply is better handled. We are parliamentarians first, whatever our party. It is no bad thing to recall that duty in the debate and to resolve to fulfil it better.
The report started well. It contains some excellent material. Its sentiments are fine. In its conclusions it states:
We have stressed the need for fundamental reform of the financial procedures of the House of Commons.
That is impeccable. It goes on:
We have drawn particular attention to the lack of effective control, a lack of relationship between the expenditure and taxation proposals put before the House.
Perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and the Leader of the House know, that latter complaint is something that the Treasury Select Committee's inquiries into Armstrong may resolve. The report refers to
the inadequacy of the present form of the estimates as a means of proper control.
The following paragraph puts forward recommendations to provide
a real opportunity for the House to begin to re-assert its historic function of scrutinising and controlling public expenditure.
Do the proposals of hon. Members and the Leader of the House measure up to those impeccable sentiments? Do they measure up to the challenge that the House set when it established the Committee and which members of the Committee acknowledged in their report?
The mood of the House in recent years has been decisively in favour of tipping the balance towards Parliament and away from the Executive. That is necessary and right. It is our historic duty. Over the years power has moved seemingly inexorably towards the Executive and away from the people's representatives in the House. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was polite about my services in the House. Many hon. Members are determined to restore the balance in favour of Parliament. We have made some improvements. Perhaps the new Select Committee system is one such improvement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) deserves credit for ensuring that motions were tabled for decision so early in the life of this Parliament.
Perhaps a change in the Comptroller and Auditor General's status will be another improvement. I wonder why that change has to be forced upon Government. The debate in the House a few months ago did not bring the matter to the attention of the House for the first time. Successive Public Accounts Committees reported on the matter. I hope that we shall hear views from the chancellor of the Exchequer within the next week or two rather than within the next month or two.
We all agree that the heart of the matter is in the control of public finance. We can talk about springboards, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) who has such an honourable history in such matters. Perhaps there is a springboard. I am anxious that there should be.
The Committee was set up to meet the discontent about Supply. All of us, almost without exception, thought that it was too easy — and has been habitually — for the Government to get their estimates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing was kind enough to quote me as saying that the way in which we failed to examine expenditure was, in my opinion, a disgrace in modern Parliament. He also quoted the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) who stated that
the present position, whereby huge sums of money are granted to the Government virtually without debate, is quite intolerable in a democratically elected Parliament.
He did not quote the Clerk Assistant who said:
For practical purposes the scrutiny of particular estimates has been abandoned.
That is the truth and it is a scandal and a shame. It must be changed. The only question that we are discussing is how that is to be achieved.
We can welcome some of the realistic ideas and remedies in the report. No doubt the report will take an honoured place among the many previous reports on financial procedures, and so on. What bothers me—I state my view very plainly to the House—is that I suspect and am afraid that like them it may lead us into the sands. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does not mind my saying plainly to his face—although I happen to be standing beside him—that overall the report is not as exciting as I had hoped. It is something of a disappointment. If hon. Members sincerely want to change the balance between the Government and the House—that is the point at which the Committee started and on which, we are all agreed—they must not be over-excited by the report.
Like so many previous exercises of this kind, the report bases itself fairly and squarely on the fallacy that the Government can be forced to change their detailed spending plans by amendments moved by Back Benchers on the Floor of the House. hi our heart of hearts we all know that that is not the case. All our experience over the years is that no Estimate will be cut by a Back Bench amendment moved on the Floor of the House. In Committee, it is different. Hon. Members can be persuaded by their colleagues; they have the evidence and they see civil servants. We have had masses of evidence—especially over the last few years—of the way in which Committees with Government majorities are willing to criticise the Government of the day on the evidence before them. But when the matter is debated on the Floor of the House wholly different considerations apply. A Government defeat on the Floor of the House affects their credibility on all issues, not just the one under


debate. A Government debate becomes a platform matter; there are votes on it. Governments do not like publicity of that sort; nor do their ordinary supporters like it. Party disciplines and loyalties are inevitably strong in a debate on the Floor of the House. It is a cardinal fact of parliamentary life that Governments can be criticised in Committee and can be beaten there in debate. Back Benchers rarely win a Division against them on the Floor of the House.
The proposal that I put to the Procedure Committee, which is printed in the evidence—I will not go through it in detail—was founded on that fact of life. I do not say that it was a perfect proposal, but I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton thought along the same lines. My proposal was that we should leave it to Select Committees to amend the Estimates but downwards only. No one wants to suggest that we should amend the Estimates upwards. If that were done, it would be for the Government to move amendments on the Floor of the House to restore those cuts if they wanted. By those means, the Government of the day would be put on the defensive.

Mr. John Garrett: It is quite true that in theory the hon. Gentleman's proposals make a great deal of sense. However, is it not also true that the Estimates are not organised in a form that would make any sense of debate in Committee. Since the Estimates are not in the form of individual services or programmes, how could a Committee alter individual services or programmes? His reform therefore requires a substantial change in the form of the Estimates before we can make any progress.

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman's interruption gives me an opportunity to pay, not for the first time, a tribute to him for all his constructive work over a long period.
What the hon. Gentleman says is entirely right. The Estimates need a dramatic recasting. They may be convenient from the point of view of the Comptroller and Auditor General and from a number of other points of view, but as meaningful exercises in the production of proposals for expenditure that would enable the House to appreciate exactly what money is being spent on, and to set up machinery for examining them and controlling them, they are nothing more nor less than a farce.
It is perfectly true that over the years various Committees, and hon. Members have been able to effect some improvements in the presentation of Estimates. There are more to come as a result of the work of the Treasury Select Committee. In truth, they are only a beginning. They need a complete recasting. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, sooner or later, that is what we must have.
If my proposals are accepted, Governments would be placed upon the defensive. Ministers would have to defend publicly their proposed Estimates in the House. They would have to persuade hon. Members publicly to support them at the precise points at which the proposals are most questionable. That would be a thoroughly healthy process and would be welcome.
I suggested that we should make the Estimates negotiable. As a result, our Estimates days would consist of a series of debates in which the Government would have

to persuade us that they were right and that the Committee that had wanted to reduce the Estimates or change the emphasis on the various subheads was wrong. That proposal should not alarm Ministers. In nine cases out of 10—perhaps more—the cuts would duly be restored on the Floor of the House. However, next year, the Department concerned might be a little more cautious in the Estimate. On the tenth occasion, it might not win. The balance would tilt slightly away from it.
That should not alarm the Government, as it would not be a resigning matter. On current form, The Times—if it lasts much longer—might support the Government with the headline "Government hold together in crucial test—defeated by only a few votes". The House would have a better opportunity to question what is being done in detail and the public would see that the trustees—in whom they have such faith and whom they believe to pace out the parameters of public expenditure—carry out their duties honourably.
The debate is short, and I shall not go into great detail, because hon. Members can see the report. Of course, there would be difficulties in implementing such an idea. The Committee gave too much weight to the difficulties and did not do enough to resolve them. It saw the trees beautifully, but was not quite so clear about the wood. I am constantly disappointed because there always seem to be a thousand reasons for not doing anything and for not reforming our procedures as radically as I should like.
The House should give the Committee two cheers for the report. There will be better opportunities for debate. In addition, it is urged that the Estimates should be formally submitted to each Committee. I am not sure what that means. As has been said, in the past, in the days of the old Estimates and Expenditure Committees, reports were often made on Estimates, and then placed on the shelves in the Library. However, it is no good having mere reports unless some action follows. Without action, Select Committees will quickly lose their enthusiasm for considering the Estimates. Before we know where we are, we shall return to the old system under which hundreds of millions of pounds were voted on the nod without any proper examination.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the Government must get their money. Of course they must. However, they must not be allowed to do so before the House has had a proper opportunity to examine the proposals and before it has been able to express its view on them.

Mr. English: I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difference between the Government getting their money or Budget judgment in totality, and the Government getting a sum for a particular purpose? The Americans make that distinction clearly, by separating the two decisions.

Mr. du Cann: I very much agree with that. We must have the power, authority and opportunity to scrutinise what is being done.
I have listened to the admirable speeches that have been made but I cannot help thinking that my reservations are exacerbated because the Government appear to be accepting the report. That makes me nervous.
We began as a reforming Parliament. I end as I began by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for


Chelmsford. We started in that mood. We are now half way through its life, and I want to see this Parliament remembered as a reforming Parliament. I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and his Committee—now happily re-established, I hope, for the lifetime of this Parliament—will take the view that we must take this process considerably further. Having begun, it would be tragic not now to be totally and unanimously resolved to make further and better progress. Let us grasp the nettle. That is what we want to do and what the nation expects us to do.

Mr. John Garrett: As many Members have said already, this is a useful report. It is really a useful introduction or preface to a report. As the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said, a much more important report has yet to be written.
I pay tribute to the effectiveness and good sense of the Chairman of the Committee who, I am glad to see, cannot hear these praises. Although he would not say so himself, he had a difficult job. If we consider what happened, we realise that this Committee was crippled from the start by some of the decisions of the Leader of the House.
If we ask ourselves why it was set up, we find that it was as a result of a recommendation of the Procedure Committee of 1977–78, on which I had the honour to serve. That Committee criticised the totality of financial control and scrutiny by the House and called for a review. In paragraph 2 of its report it said:
This review should be a wide-ranging one"—
and that a Committee, that is this one—
which was later set up should examine Supply days, opportunities for considering detailed expenditure programmes, procedure for authorising expenditure in connection with Bills, procedure for considering Consolidated Fund Bills, revenue raising and expenditure proposals and the conventions relating to the initiative on proposing expenditure and taxation increases.
That Procedure Committee had in mind a thorough examination of the financial procedures of the House. What we got was a Committee on Supply. The terms of reference covered only Supply. It was called the Procedure (Supply) Committee, but Supply covers only half of public expenditure. Moreover, it is the half about which we know most, as the report says. None of the non-Supply expenditure comes before the House. That is 50 per cent. of public expenditure—local authority expenditure, capital expenditure of certain public corporations and net debt interest, for example. That Committee had the wrong terms of reference for a start. That may have been an unfortunate accident, but such accidents have a habit of multiplying.
The next thing was that the Committee was set up for a Session. It could never consider all of Supply in one Session. It did not meet until January, and it had to get a report out in July. It had six months in which to consider Supply, so it was able to consider only some strictly procedural aspects. It never considered the form of the accounts—a crucial matter. The form of the accounts bears no relationship to policy decisions in Departments and therefore cannot be properly examined.
That Committee finished its work and we are discussing its report today. As we have all seen, the Committee said that the important work was yet to be done. The Leader of the House then set up as a Sessional Committee a Committee to consider financial procedures. It did not

meet until the first week of February, and it has to produce a report by July. Therefore, it has to get all its work done by June. There is no way in which a Select Committee can in six months consider financial control of the House. Therefore, the current Procedure Committee is crippled from the start unless it is allowed to run over more than one Session.
The Committee will start to consider financial control, it will realise that it has only six months in which to produce an interim report and it will have to wait from about July 1982 to about February 1983 before it can resume its work. Therefore, it will not be possible for the Committee to meet its terms of reference. I understand that the subject and the period during which the Committee will sit are discretionary matters for the Leader of the House.
I considered what had happened to parliamentary reform and I felt obliged during Business Questions last week to observe that the Leader of the House had refused to use the new Public Bill procedure to allow Standing Committees to sit in Select Committee form to hear evidence. That was a useful procedure and everybody liked it. It was going quite well, but we knew that Ministers did not like it.
The Leader of the House has refused to reintroduce that procedure and he has refused also to allow the House to have control of the Comptroller and Auditor General, a proposition that had the support of both sides of the House. It would be a crucial reform. We shall not be able properly to examine public expenditure until the House takes control of the Comptroller and Auditor General and he becomes a Servant of the House, as he was intended to be in the first instance. That is what was intended in 1861 in Gladstone's time.
The Leader of the House has again set up the Committee on a Sessional basis, and again it will be unable to meet its terms of reference. When I put this to the right hon. Gentleman he replied:
That is not an appropriate question from the Opposition. We have made more changes and advances in our procedures than the Labour Government."—[Official Report, 11 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 1120.]
That was a churlish answer, but I admit that it was true. The Conservative Government under the right hon.Gentleman's predecessor made some great advances. They are advances of which we shall be proud when we consider parliamentary control of the Executive.
When I say that to my colleagues some of them become annoyed, but I repeat it. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), was the most significant reformer of our procedures since the late Richard Crossman. Many of Richard Crossman's efforts came to nought, but it seems that many of the efforts of the rght hon. Member for Chelmsford will stick with us, and I pay credit to him.
It is true that the Labour Government were not interested in parliamentary reform. It is to their credit that the present Government have made some great and substantial changes. These were made when the right hon. Member for Chelmsford was Leader of the House, but since then the changes have come to a sudden stop. That is regrettable.
The Committee was hamstrung by its terms of reference and because it was set up on a Sessional basis. I sensed the work of the Treasury in the hamstringing. It reflected the Treasury's attitude to investigatory committees.
It is asking the Select Committees to do rather too much when it is recommended that they should on their own discretion study the Estimates. The new departmental Select Committee would need many more staff if they were to do so. I think that they should have more staff, because at present we get parliamentary scrutiny on the cheap.
One of the most peculiar features about the way in which we run our financial procedures is that the departmentally related Select Committees that study policy have about 30 staff, and the Public Accounts Committee, which considers the result of past expenditures, has 700 staff. That is the order of priorities that has grown up over the years. I do not think that the departmentally related Select Committees should have staff on the PAC or American scales, but as matters stand they need a dozen staff each, and they would need two dozen or more if they started to consider the Estimates. That would be money well spent, but it would also be the inevitable consequence of submitting the Estimates to the Select Committees.
Estimates have a different incidence between the Committees. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, for example, would have relatively few Estimates to consider, whereas the Select Committee on Social Services would have about 100 programme categories of Estimates to consider and would have to spend much more time considering them.
It is not our parlimentary style, although it is changing, to look closely at the details of expenditure. The history of the Select Committees so far, with the exception of the Select Committee on the Treasury, shows that they go for events and issues of the day. Therefore, the Home Affairs Committee, as it is now constituted, would never look at the spending programme of the prison department and the Home Office, but it will look at the sus law. It did look at the sus law. There was an interesting report, which was sexy and received publicity, and there were press conferences and everthing was right up to date, which was important. However, the hard work of going through spending programmes for the prison department, with so much on rehabilitation, so much on education, so much on construction, so much on new ways of dealing with recidivism and young offenders, is such a slow grinding task that politicians in our parliamentary position do not like it.

Mr. Hooley: The Overseas Development Sub-Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee spent a long time examining in considerable detail the waste of £4 million on the building of a hotel in a holiday village in Providenciales in the Turks and Caicos Islands. It spent much time looking in great detail at the financial structure of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Thus, my hon. Friend's strictures are not correct right across the board.

Mr. Garrett: They are in a way, because that is not quite what I meant. If the Committee was looking at the mis-spending of money, that is much more a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, and the Committee should have been looking at expenditure implications of a particular policy programme of aid. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that that is closer attention to detail than is shown by most Committees.
If Estimates are to be given to the new Select Committees, it is obvious that there must be Sub-Committees, with one half of the Committee doing policy issues and the other half trudging through the Estimates. The Committees that have been set up have limitations with regard to Sub-Committees. That is a mistake. They should be bigger and have more staff, and they should be able to form Sub-Committees if they are to go into the details of Estimates.
The decision to have eight Estimate days for debates is a useful innovation, at least as an attempt to draw the attention of the House to the detail of the Estimates. However, they will be general debates. The results will be a foregone conclusion and the debates will not be well informed, because Estimates tell us nothing. It is difficult to pick out of the volume of Estimates a subject for debate in which alternatives can be proposed. Accounts are not done in that way. They are not organised so that it can be said that here is a piece of spending aimed at a policy objective, or, at a client group in a community, and one can decide to change it by reducing it or altering it, because the money should be aimed in another direction. Our Estimates are not capable of analysis in that form and it is only when their form is changed will we be able to have sensible debates on them on the Floor of the House.
The format of the Estimates has hardly changed since 1861, while public expenditure has risen a thousandfold. There has been an enormous increase in expenditure, but not that increase in the improvement of the powers of the House to scrutinise it. That was referred to by the right hon. Member for Taunton.
An example of Estimates on which there can be sensible debates is to be found in the Library with a copy of the Federal Estimates of the United States. In those Estimates there is for example, under "Health", spending by region, spending on class of mortality and on disease control.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree with the American political system?

Mr. Garrett: I do not agree with the American form of Government, but I like their Estimates. I do not have to buy the separation of powers or the corruption in American Government and other apects of the American political system if I like their Estimates. In the American Estimates financial information comes in a form that enables one to establish objectives and criticise the results. Great Britain does not have that.
I am glad that a Select Committee is to be set up to inquire into procedures of the House. It will have a massive and important job to do. It ought to go back to square one, or even to square one minus one, and ask itself what is the role of a modern legislature in respect of Government spending. It should ask itself what issues should be examined, what information should be provided and then start to look at what it has compared with what it ought to have to do the job properly. Why do we consider taxes in detail and public expenditure in general? Why do we consider Estimates fleetingly and borrowing not at all? Why is public expenditure in the three- and four-year programmes in one form and the Estimates in an incompatible form? Admittedly, the compatibility is closer now that they will both be in cash, but in general they are in different forms. One cannot examine the consequences of this year's expenditure in advance.
Why have we lost our grip on audit? We have debated the issue before and I hope that the Government will have


more progressive ideas, but they will not. They will produce some Treasury weasel words to give us the impression that we have a hold on the Comptroller and Auditor General, but when we come to read the fine print we shall find that we have nothing of the sort and that he has slipped out of our hands like a bar of soap. The Treasury is opposed to giving back to the House the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is no doubt that the great reformers of the 1860s intended the Comptroller to be a servant of the House. That is clear from the records of the House.
Perhaps the biggest question of all is about Supply, which used to be granted to kings on the redress of grievance. Kings used to come to the House and ask for money to fight a battle and Parliament used to say "Yes, when you have redressed our grievances." Now the matter goes through on the nod or, if there is any trouble, the Government wheel in their majority and crash the matter through.
The first step is to make our financial information meaningful. I know that one can take the information that exists in Departments and illustrate it in programme terms with objectives, saying "This is what our policies are trying to do. Here are the expenditures that we attach to those policies and here are our objectives." We can organise our Estimates in programme and service terms so that we can see on what we are spending our money and what we are trying to achieve with it.
The first analysis of which I spoke shows the effectiveness of expenditure. It asks: what are the results on the community of spending so much money? One can produce a subsidiary analysis—some Governments do—to show the efficiency of expenditure. That asks: what is the relationship between input and output in Government Departments? With modern data processing methods one can take the sum of information inside a Department and do both analyses for scrutiny by the House or its Committees. I know that the data exist, because I have seen them in Departments from time to time, but they never see the light of day. That is the information that we need.
There is much work to do. I believe that the issue is fundamental. It is boring and technical, and most hon. Members are not interested in it, but it is crucial, because one never has proper scrutiny of Government unless one carries out those major reforms of our financial procedure. As the right hon. Member for Taunton rightly said, Labour Governments have been as guilty as Conservative Governments. We must now redress the balance.
The Legislature has, during the years, become less and less able to scrutinise effectively more and more public expenditure. We shall divide on the big issues down the centre of the Chamber. The Labour Party will vote for more public expenditure and, invariably, except on defence, the Conservative Party will vote for less. However, that is not the point. The point is that we should have procedure opportunities, the machinery, the support and the information so that we can ask ourselves "What is the purpose of the expenditure? What results has similar expenditure achieved in the past?" It is only when we can answer that sort of question that we can meet the duty upon us properly to scrutinise the Executive.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I shall make what I hope will be a fairly brief speech, because I

set out my views in full in the memorandum that I submitted to the Select Committee and in the evidence that it was kind enough to take from me.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) on an extremely spirited and deeply felt speech. It was an important contribution to the debate. However, I part company from the hon. Gentleman on one point. Although I was grateful for his references to me, his censures on my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council were not justified. I naturally regretted leaving in my job as Leader of the House. However, had I been consulted on my successor—which I was not—my right hon. Friend the Lord President would have been my first choice because he has a record of support for procedural reform, which is extremely important. His work as Shadow Leader of the House was the foundation on which I was able to build. I know that he continues to hold those views.
Of course, it is my right hon. Friend's job to put the Government's view to the House. The Government's view is not always the same as that of the Leader of the House. I assure hon. Members of that. However, it is fair to adopt the approach taken by my right hon. Friend and to say, as he has done, that it is up to hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their views and that he will take them fully into account.
There is nothing more important in the House than procedure. We have no constitution; we have only procedure. However, our procedure must be continually renewed and brought up to date if we are effectively to discharge our function of checking the Executive.
I support every word said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). I thank him for his kind references to me. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I am overwhelmed by those unsolicited tributes.
What was impressive about the speech of my right lion Friend the Member for Taunton was the passion that he brought to the subject of procedure. One would have thought that procedure was naturally a passion-killing subject, but not so. My right hon. Friend felt so strongly about it because he feels strongly about parliamentary government. Unless we reform our procedures continually, we shall have the shadow of parliamentary government, without its substance.
The reforms that I was able to introduce, which have been referred to, fell into four parts. There was the setting up of the 14 Select Committees and of the Liaison. Committee. It was essential to do that quickly within two months of the general election before the forces of opposition gathered. The ministerial forces initially were in some disarray because the Ministers were so occupied with their own briefs. One had to seize the opportunity for reform while it lasted. The Ministers have reformed ranks and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council is doubtless having the benefit of their attentions.
Then came the second of the reforms—the minor series of reforms that included the time limit on speeches—the first time limit ever imposed—at the discretion of Mr. Speaker on speeches in Second Reading debates. There was the important reform giving back to the Opposition the right to vote on their motions, which had been inadvertently taken away by Mr. Richard Crossman.
Then there was the third major reform in October 1980, introducing the Public Bill procedure to which the hon. Member for Norwich, South referred. He was right to do so. In spite of the criticisms and doubts expressed, that


procedure has proved its worth. I hope that, when he replies, the Lord President will say that that procedure will be used again in this Session and that it will not be allowed to become a dead letter and cease to be a parliamentary means of enforcing the will of the House.
The last thing that I did—here I must take some of the blame that the hon. Member for Norwich, South heaped so generously on the head of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council—was to set up the Committee to consider the manner in which the Government grant Supply. The nub of the problem is well known: 29 Supply days no longer for discussion of Supply, at the disposal of the Opposition for raising general topics. That may suit the Government; it may suit the Opposition; I am afraid that it does not suit hon. Members and the House as a whole.
The same kind of development has taken place with the Consolidated Fund Bill. Of course, Back Bench Members have the opportunity to raise matters on the Consolidated Fund, but again there is no detailed discussion on the actual financial procedures. Thus, what was originally a real and effective means of control has become purely formal. These means of granting Supply and controlling the grant of Supply have moved from Bagehot's efficient institution into the second category of dignified institution. I knew that the House would be disappointed if I did not refer to Bagehot sooner or later.

Mr. English: We were wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman had moved from efficient to dignified.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have always been both.
I accept that the task of reforming Supply procedures is great. The Committee has been wise to have a division: the interim report that is before us, and then consideration of the long-term issues, for which I am delighted that it has been reappointed. In considering the long-term issues, I hope that it will consider what is going on in other parts of the Commonwealth. Australia and Canada are considering exactly the same sort of situations that we are considering here. If I may say so, I prefer Australia, because I recently went there at the invitation of the Institute of Public Administration and gave a lecture on our reforms here, for which I was awarded a gold medal. I thought that they must be discriminating people for giving me a gold medal for saying things that earned me the sack here.
I want to refer briefly to some of the recommendations contained in the interim report. First, there is the vexed question of time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, it is not absolutely crucial to our discussions. One can argue about whether eight days is the right number or—as I suggested to the Committee—seven to 14, or a figure in between. However, three is really too little, is positively niggardly. I hope that that figure is put forward as a bargaining counter, not as a final view. It is important that there should be adequate discussion on the Floor of the House if these procedures are changed.
On the other hand, my right hon. Friend is right to suggest that anything that is introduced should be on an experimental basis. That is perfectly reasonable, but if the experiment proves a success I hope that it will be continued on a permanent basis.

Mr. Spearing: When the right hon. Gentleman advocates more than three days, what sort of motion and

debate does he suggest on any one of the three days? Would the motion be to "take note of the Estimates of the Department of the Environment"? How would it be focused? My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) took the view that it would be diffuse and possibly ineffective unless it were focused more accurately.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There would be a number of different motions on those days. One could have a substantive or a take-note motion. It would be a matter to be decided in the light of the prevailing circumstances.

Mr. Higgins: There may be confusion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) may also have been confused. We rejected the idea that Select Committees might amend the Estimates. We suggested as an alternative that they would put down a recommendation, for debate on the Floor of the House, that there should be a change—a reduction—in the Estimates. We envisaged a substantive motion—instead of, say, £20 million being spent on this or that, it should be only £10 million. That is not vastly different from amendment, except that the onus of proof is the other way round. The Select Committee would put down a specific motion that we should debate.

Mr. St. John Stevas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that extremely important point. I wish to refer to the question of amendment when I come to consider the Committee's long-term work.
I believe that the suggestion that the House should not have power to propose the increase of a particular Vote is absolutely right and in accordance with constitutional precedent over at least the past 300 years. Perhaps the best established principle in the whole subject is that the Crown initiates, the Commons grants, and the Lords concurs in financial matters with the Commons.
I would say "Yes" to recommendation No. 7 that the proceedings on Consolidated Fund Bills should be formal, but without prejudice to whatever may be the recommendations arising from the long-term considerations of the Committee. One does not want to foreclose the possibility of the Consolidated Fund being used much more effectiveley to provide an instrument of review and control.
I support recommendation No. 8 to provide Opposition days, but I disagree with the Committee that the decision on the use of the 19 days should remain with the official Opposition. I have been round the course several times. If one trusts in the magnanimity of the official Opposition in these matters it is a great act of faith, hope and charity, but one may end by being disgruntled and disappointed.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will have the same experience, if he has not had it already. One of the greatest troubles that I had was being ground between the millstones of the various Opposition parties fighting over who should have what days. It would be much better to recognise the fact that there is more than one Opposition party and that there should be a formal allotment of days to the other parties. I speak entirely without prejudice, as that unholy alliance is doing its best to remove me from my seat in Chelmsford. I am absolutely impartial in the advice that I give.
I put in one plea for examination by the Committee when it considers its long-term measures. It is a suggestion that I put forward to the Committee. The Consolidated


Fund Bill should be divided after Second Reading and the relevant parts sent to the appropriate departmental Committees. It should then come back to the House on Report. I do not wish to go into the details of the proposal. I know that technical objections have been put forward. However, I hope that the Committee will reconsider this when debating the long-term proposals it wishes to make.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing on his work. I noted the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. A very good beginning has been made, but a great deal of work is still to be done. The Lord President will lend a sympathetic ear to the Committee's proposals and, with his powers of persuasion, he may even get them through the Cabinet. That would be no mean achievement.

Mr. John Roper: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and I certainly add my voice to those who have already paid tribute to what he did in this Parliament's earlier years on improving our procedure. We are all the beneficiaries of those efforts and are grateful for his remarks tonight.
I also agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the contribution now being made on procedure by the present Leader of the House. I further agree, with one exception, about the Government's extremely helpful attitude in bringing forward standing orders in the near future which will enable us to debate the details of this report.
However, as has been said, this House and those hon. Members who served on the Committee were considerably helped by the Chairman who did not always have the easiest of tasks; it was not the most peaceful of Select Committees I had served on. The Chairman's equanimity was never disturbed. I have only known it to disturbed once in my life; on Friday, when I was obliged to tell him that there might be some debate earlier this evening on other matters which might delay the reaching of this important report. For the sake of his equanimity and our friendship, I am glad that that was not necessary.
The Chairman steered the Committee extremely well, and he now has an even more difficult task on the work the new Select Committee on Financial Procedures is considering. As was said by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), this Committee has an even greater task in getting down to some of the fundamental questions of financial procedures, without which this Parliament cannot claim to be in any way effective.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) was most vivid in his remarks about the inefficiencies of our procedures on dealing with the growth of the Executive. The hon. Member for Norwich, South gave the example of an increase in the scale of Estimates over the past century which suggested how irrelevant many of our procedures were. I am sure that many hon. Members, when asked by colleagues from other parliaments in Europe and the Commonwealth how we conduct financial control in Britain and when trying to explain what we do, are at first not believed because it appears so ludicrous that we should do so little, and then met with a degree of horror that a Parliament, which claims to call itself the "Mother of Parliaments", should be allowed to fall into such a degree of decrepitude in its effective control of Britain's finances.
It is a great pity, even on the departmentally related Select Committees, which could and should do much of the preliminary work of considering Estimates—even alter the important initiatives which the right hon. Member for Chelmsford introduced—that we are using only about: one in three of the non-ministerial Members of the House. In almost every other parliament, almost all Members are involved in Committees which do much work of this sort. This will need to be examined if Parliament is to have more effective control of the Executive.
I have already said that I am not satisfied with the suggestion of the right hon. Member the Leader of the House that three days would be appropriate as a starting point for these procedures. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision. My recollection coincides with that of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) rather than that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in relation to the Committee's proceedings. The setting of a number of days that we would be prepared to see reduced in subsequent haggling was rejected during informal discussions. We studied the work that needed to be done and a number of Estimates and Supplementary Estimates that had to be considered. We felt that eight days was a reasonable allocation of the time of the House in a parliamentary year in order to achieve effective control.
A minority of hon. Members on the Committee, of whom the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) was one, took the view that the initial allocation should be six days and that if this proved successful the number should be increased to eight. The right hon. and learned Gentleman moved an amendment to that effect. The difference between hon. Members over the number of days needed for the task to be performed properly varied between six and eight. Every member of the Committee, I think I am right in saying, would be horrified by the suggestion that the task could be completed in three days. I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House will examine the matter again.
It would be wrong, if we are to try to make a success of the proposal, to try to carry it out with one hand tied behind our backs. This, I suspect, would be the case if only three days were allowed. I recognise that the Leader of the House is sympathetic to the spirit that lies behind the report. I hope that he will think again. I recognise the pressures that he has to face in terms of the allocation of Government time. On this issue, however, there is a case for further consideration to see whether a number nearer to that proposed by the Committee following serious study—it was not in any way frivolous—cannot be achieved.
There is concern on the Social Democratic Bench, as on the Liberal Bench, about the allocation of Opposition days if these are created by Standing Orders. I appreciated the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford, a member of one of the larger parties, who has practical experience of the allocation of Supply days to other Opposition parties. It is necessary, in the new situation in the House and the country, to examine this matter carefully. It is important, as the report recognises, that: eve: should make clear—the Standing Orders do not make it clear—that in the 19 days are Opposition days. The House must face up to the question of the allocation of Opposition time among all the Opposition parties. Paragraph 94 of the report recommends the creation of a specific number of Opposition days which would be laid down in the Standing


Orders of the House, for the first time, as Opposition days in the same manner that Private Members' days are now laid down under the Standing Orders. I believe that that will be the right way for us to deal with the matter. The logic follows naturally and paragraph 95 mentions a "number of practical issues," the number of days that there should be, and the
problem of the rights of the smaller parties.
Paragraph 97 then states:
If there are to be Opposition days created by Standing Order the House must consider whether time should be set aside specifically for the smaller parties or whether such days should be entirely at the disposal of the official Opposition.
It points out that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who appeared before the Committee, no doubt seeing things from his own point of view, believed that the present grace and favour arrangement was probably as good a way of doing it as any. I suppose that that is not surprising in view of his experience in these matters.
In paragraph 98, the Committee explored sympathetically the possibility of doing for these Opposition days what the House already does by Standing Order for the allocation of places on Standing Committees. Under Standing Order 62(2) the Selection Committee is obliged to take account of the composition of the House. A formula was submitted whereby the Opposition days could be divided up proportionately among Opposition parties in the House. The paragraph is absolutely right. The mathematical aspect is not the only part of the problem. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, there would also be a problem of timing—not just how many days, but when. That also should be regulated by some form of convention in the House.
Of the 297 hon. Members who are not on the Government side, 58 come from parties other than the official Opposition. That is 20 per cent. of those hon. Members not on the Government side. That situation must be dealt with. On the basis of 19 or 20 days, that means that the minority Opposition parties would have four days a year on which to raise debates. Having agreed that that is appropriate, the timing must then be worked out.
I have one criticism of the Select Committee—I do not suppose that the right hon. Member for Worthing will be surprised at that. Having worked through paragraphs 94 to 98 on the logic of the matter, unfortunately, when the Select Committee came to its recommendations in paragraph 99 it failed to fulfil or follow the logic of its own argument. Paragraph 99 suggests that the method of allocation should remain as at present, giving all 19 days to the official Opposition subject to any arrangement that they choose to make with the smaller parties. Those are patronising words indeed. I was grateful to the two Conservative Members who voted with me for an amendment which sought to achieve a more rational basis.

Mr. Peter Thomas: As a member of the Committee, the hon. Gentleman will remember that there was great sympathy for a formula to be found if possible. Everyone wishes minority parties to have, as of right, an opportunity to take part in Opposition days. However, the mathematical formula would mean the Plaid Cymru, for example, would hardly have any time at all. There were difficulties. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the mathematical formula is an answer? Much more is needed if one is thinking in terms of how to allocate time

and dates. There must, therefore, be discussion of some sort. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestion to put forward, it will be received with some sympathy.

Mr. Roper: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South who, with characteristic fairness, has pointed out that the Committtee did take some time on this matter. It is also fair to say that some of the problems which were raised in this subject were outside the general sphere of interest of the Select Commitee. Therefore, as Leader of the House said, it is a matter on which there ought to be further and fuller consultations, whether in the form of some new Select Committee to deal with the particular problems that the growth of minority parties have created for the House, or in some other informal consultations. There is a need for that to be done in order to deal with the specific points.
There are different problems between the various minority parties representing different lands in the United Kingdom. On Scottish days the SNP has an opportunity which is not as easily available to Plaid Cymru. That party does not have the same opportunity for debate on Welsh matters. Similarly, Northern Ireland Members have specific opportunities for debate which are not available to others. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has a case when he suggests that a strict mathematical formula is not the only way to deal with the problems. As the Leader of the House acknowledged, the issue requires further discussions and consultations.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) prayed in aid the Committee of Selection. Although individual minority parties may have had to take issue with the Committee of Selection from time to time, it has proved possible through the agency of that Committee for a band of Committee places to be available to minority parties and for reasonable arrangements to be made between the parties to fill those places. Surely that principle can be followed when dealing with time, as it is when dealing with Committee places.

Mr. Roper: As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, there are ways in which this can be done. Perhaps it was expecting too much of the Select Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Worthing and primarily concerned with Supply matters, to resolve other difficult and growing problems. Therefore, although I criticise the decision of the report, I understand that it goes to some extent beyond the immediate responsibilities of the Committee.
It is surely necessary for us to ensure that we have procedures that recognise that in the country and in the House we are moving away from the domination of politics by two parties. The allocation of Opposition time or Supply time is one aspect. I trust that the House will come to a more rational conclusion than the Committee in dealing with this problem. I was glad that in his opening remarks the Leader of the House said that he would bring in orders in the not-too-distant future to implement the report's recommendations. I hope that on recommendation 8 on the allocation of Opposition time, and on the number of days which are to be made available for the consideration of Supply matters, he will think again and bring forward better proposals.

Mr. David Crouch: I have listened throughout the debate because I regard myself these days as a "non-select" Member. Most of the contributions in the debate have come from very "select" Members, and in particular members of the Committee headed in such a distinguished way by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
I have always recognised the advance that we made two years ago with the establishment of 14 new departmentally oriented Select Committees, but it is necessary for the ordinary Back Bencher's voice to be heard—not upstairs but on the Floor of the House. He needs to be given the opportunity and the time. That is why I want to catch the ear of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House before he responds and before he enacts such orders as will make this further advance possible.
I agree with everything that has been said. In particular I agree with the points made so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). He spoke about this very important measure whereby individual Members of Parliament can scrutinise Supply and expenditure, and make representations.
I am most concerned about paragraph 51 of the report which deals with the role of the House. It says:
Prior scrutiny of expenditure is necessary before effective debates can be held in the House.
I agree. We therefore propose to refer these matters to existing Committees to carry out prior scrutiny. The report continues:
However, no amount of work by Select Committees and no amount of recommendations will serve any purpose unless there is an adequate procedure to enable the spending proposals to be debated, voted on and amended if necessary.
I am concerned that the individual hon. Member should have the chance to make representations and, if necessary, to move an amendment and force a vote. On occasions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, it may be easier to make in Committee representations that might be distasteful to one's own side—particularly when one is on the Government side—aimed at opposing a particular measure than it is in this place. It is not impossible to take up such a position in this place, to move an amendment, or to force a vote and to win. I remember an occasion, on the Finance Bill some years ago in Committee of the whole House, when a number of hon. Members, including myself, moved an amendment, spoke to it and were heard. We did not have to force it to a Division because the Chancellor recognised that he would not have carried the day. That is Parliament at work. Admittedly, it is Parliament at work on the Finance Bill, which deals with taxation. We have such opportunities, as the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) admitted, and we play our part on those occasions when hon. Members respond.
It is the question of response that worries me. I have not been on a Select Committee for two years. I am not complaining about that. In some ways, I am having a sabbatical, because I served on Select Committees for 13 years. In some ways, my two years' sabbatical enables me to think about the whole work of Parliament rather than the minutiae of the work that service on a Committee forces one into. Suddenly, one becomes an expert on home affairs, or on the audit in a Public Accounts Committee or on expenditure, or foreign affairs. One tends to regard oneself in my position as being very select and, very

important, spending most of one's time upstairs and being very busy. In that position one is seen by hon. Members as different. Clearly, a Member who is on the Sub-Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, looking into overseas aid, will be concentrating his mind on the minutiae.
Many other hon. Members may have the opportunity to debate a Select Committee report on the Floor of the House but they may not make expert contributions because they have not had the benefit of such expertise, all of the paper work that membership involves and they may not be so well briefed. That is true unless an hon. Member who is not an expert has equipped himself to meet the hour and to match up to the occasion.
We all recognise that the Chair will never show preference to any hon. Members. Those who are not members of Select Committees will always be heard if the House is given the time when the Select Committee reports. I recognise the value of the scrutiny undertaken by Select Committees, but we must guard against the fact that there will be 14 different parcels, or groups of specialists. That is not the whole House or the whole of Parliament. Therefore, it is vital to allow time. Parliament, the Government and the Executive must not assume that we have adopted an even greater extension of parliamentary democracy when we allow departmental Select Committees to scrutinise expenditure proposals. That is only good in part. That scrutiny is undertaken only by a certain number of expert hon. Members, who are assisted by their advisers.
The test comes when the report returns to the House and concerns the way in which the House responds. However, the report must return to the House and must not sit for too long on the shelves, gathering dust. It must come to the House when it is still alive in our minds and when we have only recently read about it in the national press and heard it discussed on the radio and television. Hon. Members may then realise that that debate is being discussed in Committee and that they are interested and wish to take part in the debate. Constitutents will contact their Members of Parliament and will ask them to take part. However, if weeks and months pass—as already happens—before the reports is debated, our memories will dim. Other matters will crop up and the scutiny of those expenditure proposals by the whole of Parliament will be less thorough on the Floor of the House, despite the excellent report that has been produced. We shall all be indebted to those hon. Members who pursue the Executive and its proposals. However, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House must ensure that there is enough time to debate the issue on the Floor of the House so that we can all be involved and all be new-type democrats.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: It is a hazard of parliamentary life to comment on the quality of the debate while the debate as such is still proceeding. However, I have rarely listened to a debate in which there have been so many good contributions from both sides of the House. So far, the debate has been well informed. I shall preface my contribution by joining with those who have once again acknowledged the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to the reform of our parliamentary procedures. I also pay tribute to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr.


Higgins). As the report shows, the subject is crucial. It deals with the fundamental financial mechanisms that govern our proceedings in the House. I was particularly encouraged by the sense of urgency, indicated in the report, for example in paragraph 101, where it suggests that the recommendations could be implemented without much delay. In regard to the urgent implementation of reform of our Supply procedures as far as the Opposition are concerned this is a hope shared. Conscious that we are embarked on changing procedure which goes back to the time of the Plantagenet kings, the House is concerned that we get any restructuring of our procedures right.
I have been fascinated in the report and in the minutes of evidence by what I might describe as the rhetorical wringing of hands at a situation in which 29 parliamentary days each Session are allocated for the consideration of Government finance Estimates but in which few are used for that purpose. I would not seek to justify public money being voted through on the nod nor the erosion of parliamentary time used for the scrutiny of Estimates which has taken place over recent years, but we should at least try to understand why this has happened.
Given a free choice between debating a currently controversial political issue or spending parliamentary time on what many might regard as the arid world of Government financial statistics, is it any wonder that parliamentarians have behaved like politicians by opting for the politically contentious and by implication demonstrating a seeming reluctance to take on the role of accountant or auditor? That is a fact of life and part of a parliamentarian's behaviour pattern.
Perhaps of greater significance is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) in the knowledgeable memorandum on reforming the Supply procedure that he presented to the Committee. I was delighted that in his contribution to the debate he referred again to the salient points. In paragraph 2 of his memorandum he expressed the view that the enforcement of public accountability depends not only upon procedural arrangements but on the quality of information presented to Parliament. How right he is. Equally I share his view that we could learn a great deal from the Canadians about the format and presentation of Estimates. If the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny and control is to be improved, and I accept that this is essential, then the manner in which Estimates are presented to Parliament should also be examined.
I was encouraged when the right hon. Member for Worthing again drew attention to the fact that borrowing and the contingencies fund form no part of submissions to the House in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. Because the right hon. Gentleman has raised the two issues, I am confident that his Committee, when it returns to its task, will pick up those points for further consideration.
Turning to the individual recommendations, I endorse the view expressed in paragraph 37 of the Committee's report that
the House's financial procedures of the House are antiquated and defective and need a thorough overhaul,
Consequently we support the first recommendation in paragraph 37, which proposes the appointment of a Select Committee
to examine the House's financial procedures and to make recommendations.

In other words, the suggestion is that the Select Committee on Procedure returns to the job that it has now started in such a splendid way and gets ahead with completely examining the financial procedures of the House.
Turning to paragraph 50 of the report, we approve the recommendation that the role of the departmentally related Select Committees should be advisory rather than functional and that the relevant Estimates should be submitted to each departmentally related Select Committee. As for the role of the Select Committee being advisory rather than functional, if we were to accept the argument that it should be functional, inevitably the consequence would be that the composition of the Committees would be critically examined by the Government and the main Opposition parties. There would then be a demand for proportional representation. This is the basis of my anxiety that the Committees would be better to carry on their advisory role than take on a functional role.
We agree with the opening words of paragraph 55 where it says:
It is difficult to assess in advance the right number of days to spend on the estimates.
This is the issue that has caused concern during our deliberations about the number of days that we should allocate for the considertion of Estimates. I noted the comments made by the right hon. Member for Worthing, the Chairman of the Committee, when he was arguing for eight days. But the report itself accepts that much depends on the Estimates themselves and it proposes eight days.
I am more inclined to the view that initally we should go forward on the basis of three or four days and that if that allocation proves inadequate the whole issue could be looked at again. Quite naturally, if it were three days we would be proposing that one day should come from Government's time, one from the Opposition's time and one from Back Benchers' time.
The next recommendation in the report to which I wish to turn is in paragraph 66, in which the establishment of an Estimates Business Committee is proposed. I notice that the Leader of the House had reservations about this proposal. Quite frankly, I must confess that I sympathise with the view that he expressed when he appeared to be erring on the side of giving this responsibility to the existing Liaison Committee. The Liaison Committee as it is presently constituted represents a wealth of parliamentary experience, and quite frankly I accept the suggestion that this Committee might very well fulfil the function envisaged in paragraph 66.
I turn now to paragraph 70. We agree with the recommendation that when the Estimates are discussed, amendments to increase those Estimates should not be in order. I do not want to rehearse again the arguments in the report, which we accept. Equally, we concur with the recommendation in paragraph 84 that change in the present two-tier structure for granting moneys should await the completion of the full-scale review of the financial procedures of the House.
Paragraph 92 deals with the question of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Quite frankly, while we give it our support, we do not question the suggestion in paragraph 92 that debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill should be limited to one and a half hours for each topic. As far as the Consolidated Fund Bill is concerned, it is essentially a Back Benchers' opportunity. Nobody is present who does not personally opt to be present. A


handful of Ministers take it in rotation to respond to the debates, but virtually everybody who is present during the course of the Consolidated Fund debate has opted to be present. That is why I have a minor reservation about curtailing the open-ended nature of the debates. We lose nothing by leaving them open-ended, and affording the Back Benchers the opportunity to deploy their parliamentary skills.
I accept the suggestion that the recess motion should be limited, but I question whether one and a half hours is adequate, having sat through, and contributed to, so many debates on recess motions myself.

Mr. English: I would like to be fair to the Leader of the House by asking him the same question that I will ask my right hon. Friend. Does he realise that when we proposed these limitations of Back Bench time it was in relation to the eight days? The suggestion that one day should be taken from Back Bench time and given to an Estimates day, but that, in addition, all the proposals for removals from Back Bench time should be accepted is one that I can well understand my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench readily accepting. Does my right hon. Friend realise that Back Benchers might not be so ready to give up all their Back Bench time in return for only one day?

Mr. Morris: I am conscious that my Back Bench colleagues will be critically examining any positive proposals and recommendations which emerge at a later date.
The recommendation in paragraph 99 is perhaps more contentious. It was understandable that the minority parties represented in the House should question the allocation of parliamentary time and the manner in which it is allocated to the party which provides the Leader of the Opposition. However, I find it a little much to listen to hon. Gentlemen representing the SDP demanding to be considered as a minority party when it comes to allocation of time.
As for the allocation generally, I would suggest, and I doubt whether it would be disputed on any side of the House, that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is the most reasonable of men. He certainly proved himself reasonable when, in the past, he has come to discuss the allocation of parliamentary time with representatives from the Parliamentary Labour Party. I believe he would agree with me that we have to look again at the question of allocation of parliamentary time. But it should be allocated to elected hon. Members.
It was a bit much when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) during the questions on business last Thursday questioned the allocation of time to the SDP. I was looking at the election address of the right hon. Member for Devonport, which said that the Labour way was the better way. He was elected on that manifesto. I have a host of manifestos and they all say the same thing. The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) also said there is a better way with Labour, not once but five times, in the manifesto on which he was elected to the House. I accept that people can go through political conversions but they cannot expect Parliament to share their enthusiasm for their new political causes to quite the same extent.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Morris: In conclusion, I wish to make three points about the generality of paragraph 99. First, I hope that the allocation of specific days as Opposition days will not rule out the possibility of the exchange of Estimates days for Opposition time. I make that point only because the Opposition would not wish to be in a position where the Government were determining the days on which specific issues were to be debated. Therefore, I hope that we retain the flexibility to exchange Opposition days for Estimates days.
Secondly, opposed private business time should not come out of the parliamentary time envisaged to he allocated as Opposition time. Thirdly, the use of the 19 days should remain with the official Opposition. That principle should be accepted by the House. However, I accept the plea that was made by the hon. Member for Farnworth that the House should decide that issue. I hope that the Leader of the House will provide the opportunity for it to arrive at a considered view.
I was encouraged that, in presenting the report of the Committee to the House, the Leader of the House, with his usual and characteristic fair-mindedness, said that he and the Government were prepared to listen to what was said during this debate. I hope that he will listen carefully to the contributions that have been made on many different aspects of the Procedure (Supply) Committee's report from both sides of the House.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish to cover a limited number of points that have come up in the debate. I understand the reason for the sense of grievance that some of the splinter parties have about the allocation of Opposition days, although I confess that it is easier to see the justice of their complaint than to apply the use of a strictly arithmetical method to overcome the problem.
The difficulties appear to be obvious. There is no exact number of half days that can represent the nine divisions into which the minor parties are gathered. Any attempt to combine them officially for allocation of half days would be much resented. For example, if it were proposed to put Welsh Nationalists in with Scottish Nationalists, both might resent that. The implication of that logic would be that Irish parties should be lumped together, which would be the first cohesion successfully imposed upon them or any aspect of Northern Irish history for some time.
I have given some thought to the matter since the Committee of which I was a member came to its conclusion. There is one possible solution. If the total number of Opposition parties—or minor parties, because some of them sometimes sit on one side of the House and sometimes on the other—were added together, they would have in total the proportion of Opposition time that their total strength bears to that of the official Opposition. If they drew lots for half days of their time, having as many lots as they have Members, their chance of winning a half day would be proportional to their strength. It would not be guaranteed, because the laws of chance do not work in


a restricted series. However, that is one way in which one could avoid grouping together parties that might resent such groupings. It would introduce an element of mathematical relationship to their opportunity for securing what used to be called Supply time.
Once we divorce the new concept of Opposition time from the old concept of Supply, we no longer have the same constraints—for instance, that there should be no fewer than six Supply days before this or that happens—because there is no longer any relation to voting Supply. We could, for instance, have one Opposition day every X weekdays, taking the entire Session and dividing it proportionately. That would have the advantage of making the occurrence of such days predictable, which would be convenient to Members who wanted to do a certain amount of preparatory work before the day on which a given subject came up.
If we are to substitute the concept of the Opposition day or half day, as I hope we will, for the concept of the Supply day in the new pattern, do not let us accidentally constrain ourselves to the old and now, I hope, discarded myth that when the Opposition choose their subject that has something to do with the voting of Supply when one has just escaped from that.
One subject on which a little more needs to be said is the availability of specialist advice to Select Committees. It is easy to unload more and more work on to Select Committees, to such an extent that they do not have the capacity to discharge that work. That is a solution to an apparent problem that can become unduly onerous. I believe that we should start by asking what is the maximum workload that can reasonably be imposed on a Select Committee. We should then work back to ask what are the functions that are compatible with that workload, rather than start with an admirable list of functions that one would like to discharge on other shoulders than one's own, imagining that in doing so one has found a solution to the problem, which has previously eluded the House.
The amount of work that a Committee can get through, bearing in mind that its members are also Back Benchers, in the House will depend to some extent on the degree to which it has temporary as well as permanent specialist advisers. The job of the Member should be not the accounting donkey work, but discussion of what has been pinpointed from a morass of figures and trends by advisers to the Committee as worthy of its consideration.
That, of course, does not preclude individual Members from noticing anything in the Estimates and drawing it to the attention of their colleagues. I like to think that I was probably the first to notice, buried in the Estimates, the continuing heavy expenditure on Concorde, which resulted in a Select Committee investigation when the other members of the Committee decided that it was a profitable focus for their time. Having specialist advisers to sort out the rough weeds from the chaff does not preclude or usurp the function of Members. What it does do is to avoid much unproductive work which one need not be a Member of Parliament to do.
I am extremely conscious of the workload which this procedure can impose on the Clerk's Department. We have multiplied our Committees, each of which has to be staffed by the Clerk's Department. Some Committees have power to appoint Sub-Committees or Joint Sub-Committees, each of which has to be staffed by the Clerk's

Department. Again, this can impose on the Clerk's Department a burden which can result only in a deterioration of the quality of service given to the House's Committees and Sub-Committees.
It would be invidious to give examples, but some of us have witnessed significant variations in quality in the clerking of different Select Committees in the House. The more Sub-Committees we have, the more likely it is that the Clerk of the Committee will be removed from that Committee partway through an important inquiry for reasons that have nothing to do with the efficient discharge of the Committee's duties, but because of moves that are necessary within the Clerk's Department for the general career structure and experience of the Clerks concerned.
These are matters that we must bear in mind in considering the efficacy of the means by which Members of Parliament served by the Clerks of the House can discharge the new duties that we impose on them. Just as we should consider the total workload that a Select Committee can carry and use that as the outer constraint on the duties that we impose on it, so we need to consider the total workload that we can impose on the Clerk's Department without the service that is given to Committees and Sub-Committees deteriorating. To that extent, we need to consider whether all the functions currently carried out by the Clerk's Department in Committees need the particular skills and aptitudes that constitute the full-time, regular, lifetime service of Clerks of the House, as opposed to the specialist skills that can be made available on a temporary basis from outside the House.
The continuity of Committees is important. Committees find that it is not just a matter of the paper qualifications that appear on a curriculum vitae; it is also the personality of the individuals with whom the Committee finds that it can work usefully. It is something that only experience shows. It does not necessarily reflect adversely on an individual if, for reasons of personality, he or she may not be able to provide exactly what the Committee is looking for, or vice versa. It will also depend on the personalities of the members of the Committee. To that extent a continuum of both members and terms of reference enable a Committee to discharge its duties to the House more efficaciously.
Also, at least some members of the Committee have a memory of what it has done and of evidence given before it perhaps as much as 10, 12 or even 15 years earlier. To take an example, when one looks at the immense sums being spent, for instance, in support of British Leyland, one has almost a feeling of déjsà vu. The first rescue operation was undertaken in the 1960s. It is not only the form of the Committee that is important, but also its manning.
That brings me to my concluding point. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St.-John Stevas) for his response to the clear wishes of the House at the beginning of this Parliament. He agreed on behalf of the Government that the manning of departmental Select Committees should be done by the Committee of Selection and not through the usual channels. That was a historically important decision. I put on record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend. It was deplorable that an attempt was made in some quarters to bypass that clear decision of the House and to pack the Committees. There was delay in setting up the departmental Committees because of that problem.
Bearing that reality very much in mind, the Procedure Committee, in considering the matters that are the subject of the report, was wise to discipline itself not to recommend for the departmental Committees the power to amend Supply resolutions and enactments. I do not believe that the system could have withstood the pressure to pack the Committees in such a way that the Government, of whichever political complexion, got a majority for their financial measures. In so doing we should have undone the historic decision that the Committee of Selection should recommend the manning of Select Committees in such a way that there is an effective degree of independence of their members. At the end of the day, whatever we do about form and Standing Orders, it is upon the integrity and industry of the hon. Members who man the Committees that the service that they perform for the House will depend.

Mr. Frank Hooley: In some respects the debate is about the priorities of our work in the House. The House must be responsible for legislation. No other body can be. We also have the duty to attempt to control the Executive, although we do that with little effectiveness these days. We also have to vote Supply.
I am moderately surprised that a high-ranking member of the Conservative Party such as the Lord President should regard the control of public expenditure as of relatively lesser importance. The right hon. Gentleman wants only three, and not eight, days devoted to its control. I regard that as an inadequate response to the Committee's recommendations for the following reasons. First, we are discussing a gigantically complex set of expenditure proposals to a total value of about £56 billion, plus or minus the odd billion. Even that figure, of course, is not the totality of public expenditure but is the Supply money. The House has allowed that figure completely to escape from its control and the Committee wishes to bring it back under at least some form of control through the recommendations.
There are 18 classes of main and three sets of supplementary Estimates with a vast array of subheads—large and small sums—huge amounts of money, single Votes running into billions and other Votes of perhaps £2 million or £3 million. It is not feasible to say that the House will return to exercising any sort of control if we are to be given three days; I am not sure if those three days represent the residue of what is left after statements, questions and goodness knows what else, starting at about half-past five and knocking off at about ten o'clock.
Three days will not do for this process, first, because of the complexity, range and size of the sums involved and, secondly, because of the Committee's intention—at least as I construe it, and I believe that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) confirmed this—to use those days to vote on specific estimates. They will not be used just to take note that the DHSS intends to spend £9 million or to vote that a couple of million be knocked off the supplementary benefit but that certain precise proposals should be put down on the Order Paper, debated and voted on in respect of specific Estimates.
Voting is as important, in a sense, as the consideration on the Floor of the House because, of course, there are two issues. First, there is scrutiny and, secondly, control. The House can control anything in only one way—by the vote. At the end of the day, the only way in which the

Government can be called to account on any policy or expenditure issue is when hon. Members go to the Lobbies and say "Aye" or "No"—"yes, we are prepared to let it go" or "no, we are not".
Such votes are, of course, massed by the present Government majority. There are occasions on which the Government majority is so large that the vote's effectiveness is not as apparent as it might be. However, even in those circumstances, situations can arise when the size of the vote's majority can be crucial. If there is to be any control over these vast sums of money, it is essential that specific motions on specific votes be put to the House and that Members divide in the Lobbies and say that they approve, disapprove or wish to reduce them.
Incidentally, I take the strong view that there should also be the power to propose increases. I know the hallowed tradition exists that the Crown must initiate expenditure. As with many such traditions, it is more hollow than hallowed. At least the power to suggest increases in certain Votes ought to exist, although I have no doubt that the Government of the day will marshal their forces and vote them down.
It is not good enough for the Lord President to say that it is a splendid report which he has a great deal of sympathy with. I do not call his good faith into question when saying that. However, it just will not do for him to say to the House that three days are enough. If we are taking the report seriously, the proposition that there must be eight full days of parliamentary time devoted to this business must be accepted much further than the Leader of the House has been prepared to say so far.
I wonder what happened to all the days that the House of Commons and the Government gained when most of the Finance Bill was sent upstairs. I seem to recall that when I first came to this place, not terribly long ago, hon. Members spent day after day and night after night during the summer slogging through all the nuts and bolts of the Finance Bill in Committee of the whole House. By a long overdue and sensible reform, most of the Bill was sent upstairs. What happened to all those days I do not know. The Government or someone got them. There must, however, be a few days knocking about that could be used for the eight days that have been proposed. The matter should be investigated.
Although, in my view, eight days will not be sufficient, such an allocation is a good beginning towards implementing what the Committee suggests. I do not agree with the Leader of the House, on the issue of the Business Committee, that the Liaison Committee would be appropriate. It was not set up for that kind of work. We are talking about business of the whole House. The Liaison Committee was not set up to deal with the business of the House. It co-ordinates, as its name implies, some of the nuts and bolts of the work of the Select Committees on the allocation of money and the maintenance of contact. It is not concerned with the business of the House.
I do not object to the suggestion made by the Leader of the House. But the Liaison Committee is not what hon. Members had in mind. What is required is a Business Committee such as I believe operates through the usual channels when there is discussion about guillotines. We want an effective Business Committee to allocate time in the eight days.
The issue before the House is not only control but scrutiny. On the whole, the Committee then came to the view that the existing Select Committees could perform a


valuable scrutiny job on the Estimates. One needs, however, to recast the form of the Estimates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has forcibly argued. A sweeping reform is needed. No doubt the Committee will eventually take up the matter.
There is also some force in the argument of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that a detailed, far reaching scrutiny of the Estimates may impose a heavier load than the Select Committees can carry. Although the Select Committees are an immediate instrument, already to hand, for scrutinising the Estimates, it is possible that there will be need to organise something more effective.
There is also some force in the argument of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) that the Committee's work should be deeper and more serious and that it should have the power to amend Estimates. The weakness of the argument is that the House never delegates powers to Committees. At some point, whatever a Committee does, the issue has to come back to the House. I am inclined towards the view that the Committee, as a whole, took. While the Select Committee should scrutinise the Estimates and make recommendations over what hon. Members thought was wrong or what they considered should be increased, the formal business of taking decisions must fall upon the House. That is why we need eight days and why three days are not enough.
I should like to comment on the moans and groans of the minority of the Opposition parties about their Supply days. I do not know why the Liberal Party is complaining. Its 12 Members constitute one-twenty-fifth of the total Opposition. I do not know why that should entitle them to one out of 19 Supply days. Mathematically, that is not right and I see no case for it. If we ever reach a time when there are large numbers of legitimately elected minority party Members on the Opposition Benches, we may have to consider the matter further. Under the present arrangements, the Liberals certainly have no cause for complaint.
I share to some extent the view of the right hon. Member for Taunton that this is not a radical reform. It is a move in the right direction which could provide the House with the beginning of a much more effective exercise of power over public expenditure. Brought into effect and carried through correctly, it could be an important first move in that direction. To that extent, I very much support the recommendations of the report, and I certainly do not accept that they should be whittled down in the fashion suggested by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Peter Thomas: We have had a fairly long and very good debate which is nearing its conclusion. I shall therefore not delay the House long. I have risen to speak mainly because it gives me the opportunity to associate myself with the warm and genuine tributes paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for his chairmanship of the Select Committee, of which I was privileged to be a member. He was indeed an excellent Chairman. He had the advantage, or disadvantage—I am not sure which—of having in the Committee a formidable collection of people of great ability, great individuality and in some respects of stern and fixed opinions, and they were all exceedingly

eloquent—occasionally at the same time. My right hon. Friend kept order in a remarkable way and we are indeed indebted to him for the way in which he conducted himself in the Chair throughout the many long sittings of the Committee.
As my contribution to the report was minimal, I may say with complete modesty that I regard it as an extremely effective and good report, which certainly deserves the general support that I believe it will receive.
I make just a few brief observations. First, I gathered from one or two of the speeches today that the impression has been given that this House is deeply concerned about the scrutiny and control over Government expenditure currently provided for in our procedures. There is no doubt that one or two very active Members of the House are very discontented, but it should not be thought that that discontent is widespread. It must be understood that, if the House had wished to scrutinise and control Government expenditure through Supply over the years, it would have done so, because the opportunity to do so has existed for many years. There are 29 Supply days which could, if the House so wished, be used for the scrutiny, and to some extent the control, of Supply. It has been the wish of the House over the years, however, that those Supply days should be used for an entirely different purpose—for general debates of a political nature. That is the wish of the House; and it has been the wish of successive Oppositions.
The report should not be regarded as modest. Its recommendations are radical. If they are put into effect—as I hope that they will be—considerable changes will be made. One of the reasons why I was worried about there being too many Estimate days was that I did not wish a change to take pine which would be exposed as being ineffective. I believed that if we had too many Estimate days the risk at the beginning would be that such days would not be fully used. I believed that on some days general debates would take place and we would return to the system which has prevailed for some time. That was why I believed that six days was enough. In the light of experience we could then decide whether to advance.
Three days is not enough. Initially I thought in terms of four days. A term of between four and eight days is probably right to begin with. I hope that the Government will consider the proposals to be an advance which merits their support. I hope that the House will understand what it means and endeavour to make it work.
As has been said so admirably, the House has never acquired the style and scrutiny of going into Estimates as other legislatures do. Only time will tell whether the House can acquire that style.
Select Committees will be taking on something new requiring great application. If it works, there is no doubt that there will be a departure from what has been the procedure for many years. There will be a new and effective scrutiny and control over Supply.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree with the closing remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). The scrutiny procedure depends upon the attendance and homework of hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and I were in a Select Committee today from 4 pm to 7 pm, and we have been present for most of this


debate. If there is a weak link in the chain, in will be in the considerable extra work required of Members on the Select Committees. We shall have to prepare for debates that might take place on proposed Estimates days.
I congratulate the Select Committee on its work. I was a member of the former Select Committee that dealt with the earlier batches of changes in procedure. I know the amount of work involved in preparing a report such as this. I commend it in particular for the excellent table which sets out how the Consolidated Fund works over the year. It is the first time that I have seen it, and it illuminates a great mystery. We can benefit from it.
As the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, we are really discussing the constitution of the United Kingdom. In that respect our Standing Orders are part of the not so unwritten constitution. Indeed, that not so unwritten constitution is found in many different places, such as the Treaty of Rome and our Standing Orders. Grievances aired before Supply and Adjournment were one method by which the House gained its power. The Standing Orders show how we can use that time. If the proposals are adopted in amendments introduced by the Lord President, changes will have to be made to the Standing Orders. Time is all-important. We want time to debate motions. The mover of the motions and the timing of tabling are also important.
I emphasise a point that has already been made. Opposition Supply time—whether 19 days in practice or 29 days in theory—should still be linked to Supply. That is an important constitutional principle. As Standing Orders state, that must be done within certain limits. Whether the time is used, as it often is, for a debate on a broad subject and the Supply is done formally at the conclusion, or afterwards, is not of prime importance. The important point is the link. Like a motion on the Adjournment, it is for the House to choose what is done with the time. However, if the link is broken, we shall lose a link in the constitution.
Estimates days will rely heavily on the scrutiny spadework undertaken by the Select Committees. The raising and spending of money is the prime responsibility of the Crown. It is Parliament's role to scrutinise, sanction or refuse the raising of taxes or the spending of money on an item. Rightly, hon. Members wish to revitalise the powers of the House. The Estimates day procedure is good, but what is to happen has already been the subject of exchanges. There are no explicit recommendations in the report. We had an ingenious suggestion from the Clerk. I am glad to know that he still exists. He suggested that each literal Vote should be taken by a motion and vote in the House. That would be the logical answer, but it cannot, for practical reasons, be done.
Perhaps the proposed Estimates Committee could select the Votes. I agree that the Liaison Committee should not do that, because that exists for a linked but separate purpose. It could be done at the Opposition's wish or by rota by the Select Committees involved in the Estimates. I do not know exactly how it would work. Whether the debates should last three or eight days, the principle is right.
Unless Select Committees scrutinise thoroughly, the debates that we all agree should take place will not do the job required. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley said, there will probably be a specific vote on an issue and the background will have been prepared by the relevant Select Committee. Whether there is a debate will not be

a test of a Select Committee's report. There is clearly a push-back effect on the administration. Any Minister or civil servant who knows that he may have to appear before a Select Committee to justify expenditure or policy may well think twice before adopting any line of action. That gives the Select Committee a spot check power, regardless of whether it is used and whether the report is debated in the House.
Nevertheless, there is always that threat. There is correspondence from the Clerk to the permanent secretary of the Department concerned. Of course, we can put down an informed question. So the quality of the work of the Select Committee can be enhanced if used properly.
There is also a need for greater scrutiny of the quality of the expenditure and of what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has constantly reminded the House—the value-for-money element. I do not support the Government's view that this is necessarily an audit function. The local government auditor or the Comptroller and Auditor General is surely concerned with appropriation and misappropriation, as indeed is the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Whether we are getting value for money is a different sort of judgment. It may be partly political and partly administrative. I am not sure whether it is wholly covered by the accountant's traditional skills. I give two examples to the House in relation to public expenditure where I am not sure that anybody has yet installed machinery to enable us to come to value-for-money conclusions.
Some time ago I was concerned about the use of public transport. I tried to find out from the Civil Service how much was spent respectively on rail warrants and on road allowances for civil servants' motor cars. I could not find out. I was told that it would be too costly to do the extensive computing required. My answer, which I drew to the attention of the Committee then concerned, was that if it was not calculated it ought to have been. That is the sort of value-for-money equation that we ought to have.
Another item of current interest is aid for computers. There is an interesting article in The Times today, which tells of the original grant made after a visit of a civil servant to a small laboratory in Manchester, where those concerned had produced the first computer in the late 1940s. A letter was received a few days later saying they were going to get so many thousand pounds for research. At the moment, the Government, through the Department of Industry, are involved in a scheme to aid information technology. Is that on a specific Vote? Under what head is it, and is it realistic? Indeed, is such a programme necessary if these machines are as efficient and money-saving as we are told? Those are two small examples of how even the Votes may not give us the tools that are necessary for the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley wants to have.
Going back to the Adjournment itself, recommendation (7)(d) of the Select Committee's report suggests that the motion for the Sessional Adjournment be kept to one and a half hours only and not be open-ended. This would be a retrograde step. Whilst the motion for the Adjournment is a succession of short speeches by hon. Members on matters of short-term legitimate grievance, it sometimes coincides with a matter of national or international importance on which the reputation or efficiency of the Government is at stake. On those occasions it would be a


pity if, as with statutory instruments, we found ourselves limited to an arbitrary one and a half hours, irrespective of the issues of the day.
I should have thought that in those circumstances—I am sure that as a House of Commons man the Lord President would agree with this, certainly if he were sitting on this side of the House—it should be incumbent upon the Government to move the closure when they thought it necessary. The Chair would accept the motion if it considered it appropriate and the Government would have to find the necessary votes to close the debate. It is usual now to have this before the Consolidated Fund Bill. So long as there is no time penalty, that is the most appropriate way of doing it. We do not wish to make it easier for the Government on matters of Supply and I do not see why we should do so on motions for the Adjournment.

Mr. Pym: The contributions that have been made to the debate have shown how right it was to hold it. It has enabled the Government to take the mind of the House and to hear the various views that have been expressed. It has been an informative and valuable debate.
It is clear that a great deal of what the Committee recommended is acceptable to both sides of the House. It is clear also that there is much more work to do. That is not a reflection on the admirable work that has been done so far. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) described the report as modest and radical, which some might regard as fair. I think that I would do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) thought that it was rather disappointing. He wanted something much more far-reaching. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) thought that the terms of reference were wrong anyway. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) thought that it was a good beginning. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) thought that it was major and radical. Any report that produces that variety of opinion must be worth while. We are united in congratulating and thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing for what he has done.
I was glad to be able to re-establish the Select Committee recently. I think that the House knows that I should have liked to do so earlier had that been possible. However, it is now continuing with its excellent work. I note the comments of the hon. Member for Norwich, South about that being done on a Sessional basis only.

Mr. John Garrett: I owe the right hon. Gentleman an apology. I accused him of setting up the Committee whose report we are considering on a Sessional basis. I understand that it was not his fault, and I withdraw that charge against him. To that extent, my encomium of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is slightly diminished.

Mr. Pym: That is kind of the hon. Gentleman. He is probably not aware that I had some interest in the background to the establishment of the Select Committees. However, credit must go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for the manner in which he proceeded in 1979.
As for the proposed Estimates Business Committee, I suggested that the task to be presented to it could equally well be undertaken by the Liaison Committee. That suggestion was objected to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I question whether it is necessary to establish yet an additional Committee to do the job. I agree that the Liaison Committee was not set up to do that work, but it seems that it is a Committee that could undertake the task. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee was neutral on the issue. I shall consider the matter further.
I suggested that three days should be allocated to the Opposition, but that was criticised by most hon. Members on the ground that three days were insufficient. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing in that view and said that three days were far too few and that we should have seven days. It was not surprising that the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) thought that three days were too few. The hon. Member for Heeley and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South also thought that three days were too few. However, I note that the official Opposition, whose view was expressed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), thought that three days were about right. I think that he said that it should be three to four days. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South thought that it should be four days. It is an issue about which I shall have to think.
I ask those who are enthusiastic about seven days and those who think that even that would be inadequate "Where is it all to come from?" From whichever side of the House the allocation comes, it will have to be done at the expense of something else. I do not think that there was any constructive comment from those who contributed on this issue in proposing from where the time was to be found.
I take comfort from the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing confessed that he thought it was bad to begin with more days than the House would find that it needed, which would lead to a recommendation to reduce the number of days. If one is to make a change of the kind proposed by the Committee, and obviously the Government, as I am, are in favour of that, it would be sensible to start on a modest basis, and if after the experience of a Session or perhaps two it is found that it is wholly inadequate, as has been maintained, the House will find ways of adjusting and extending it. It is easier to do that than to start with too many days. This is particularly so since, were we to start on the basis of anything like seven or eight days, we would find that the strain on both sides of the House in sacrificing other time would be considerable.
I accept that criticism has been made of my proposals and that Members are in favour of more days, and perhaps that justifies the fact that I opened the debate myself with some explanation of the Government's views so that hon. Members could make comments on my initial reaction.
There is also the difficult question of how the Opposition days are allocated. However many it may be decided to have in the end, there has to be a decision about how they are to be allocated. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised the question and said that he


did not wish the official Opposition to have control of allocation. He was speaking about the reluctance of the Opposition of the day, of whichever party, to give any time at a certain time in the year. It sounded to me as though he wanted to use the House to call to account not only the Government, but the Opposition. He seemed to be putting forward new ideas on which there would be comment if they were to be taken seriously.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford did not think that it was right for the official Opposition to control the allocation of Opposition time. However, there was no suggestion either from him or from anyone else—that is not a criticism—of the basis on which an alteration in the allocation should be made. I know that the Committee spoke about a mathematical basis, as did the hon. Member for Farnworth. I am reluctant to suggest that anything in the House works on a mathematical basis. It would not make much sense, as we are a collection of human beings, representing human beings, and, on the whole, mathematics is not a good guide. Still, it is a point of view.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Would the Leader of the House accept and make it unequivocal that it must be on an elected basis?

Mr. Pym: That is another point of view. The SDP has at the moment but one elected Member, although as far as I, as Leader of the House, am concerned, it is a properly constituted party.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that selection for the Standing Committees works on a mathematical basis?

Mr. Pym: There is that background of the number of seats in relation to seats on Standing Committees. When one comes to break down Opposition time to try to accommodate minority parties fairly, it was pointed out that it would be difficult to do so in such small proportions that there would be a fair allocation. That is something to

which further consideration must be given, and just as I, as Leader of the House, have responsibility in this area, so the official Opposition will have a responsibility to consider the matter.
I shall consider carefully all that has been said in the debate and in due course bring forward motions that will enable the House to come to conclusions. The motions will all be amendable, so the House can vote as often as it likes. We have had experience of late night votings. When we come to that debate I shall focus the attention of the House on some of the key issues. I hope that that will be a step forward in the direction of reform.
I regret that we have been criticised for holding the debate today. It seemed to me to be an inevitable and necessary preliminary process before any motion could be put on the Order Paper. How else could I know what the House wishes? Now that I have heard the voices, we can make further progress. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.

Mr. Ian Lang: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Disarmament

Mr. Toby Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At Question Time today I referred to a concert in aid of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as being at the Royal Festival Hall, when I should have said the Wigmore Hall. As you can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I sustained an eye injury over the weekend, and while looking down a long column of concert advertisements I made a mistake due to slightly impaired vision. I have already telephoned to apologise to the manager of the Royal Festival Hall and to the Minister for the Arts. I wish now to apologise to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am sure that the observation of the hon. Gentleman will be duly noted.

Orders of the Day — Tourist Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. David Atkinson: This is perhaps an appropriate time to highlight the problems of the British tourist industry and of our seaside resorts in particular. The past two years have been disappointing for the industry compared with the encouraging expansion of previous years. Much trade has already been lost this winter because of the bad weather; and now holiday hotels throughout Britain are being badly hit by the rail dispute, which is further deterring people from taking a winter break. If the Government needed any justification for their policy of privatising bus and coach services to encourage choice and competition with British Rail, ASLEF's total irresponsibility and short-sightedness is providing it now. If the Government bail out British Rail because of the dispute, they wll be doing to the newly established free enterprise coach services what the taxpayers' guaranteed support for British Airways has done to Laker. The British tourist industry will be the worse for it.
Tonight's debate is, to some extent, a natural follow-up to the meeting that my hon. Friend's predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), had with representatives of the local tourist industry when she visited Bournemouth last July. While welcoming my hon. Friend's appointment to his new responsibilities, I am sure that he will accept my regrets that our right hon. Friend is not here to accept my appreciation, and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), for her personal interest in Bournemouth and her visit last year. I hope that my hon. Friend is in a position tonight to refer to any progress on the matters that she agreed to take up, to some of which I shall be referring in the debate.
The Government need no convincing from me about the enormous contribution that the tourist industry makes to the British economy as well as the potential that exists for it to play an even greater role in the future. Tourism represents the largest single invisible earner of foreign currency to Britian when fares paid to British carriers are taken into account. We earn about £4,000 million a year from our overseas visitors. Everyone gains from the quality of life resulting from the many additional amenities and attractions that are provided by the industry. Visitors help to maintain the theatre and arts for all of us to enjoy. They help to keep the cost of fares down in our transport services and to support our historic houses and gardens.
Most importantly, tourism creates jobs and helps to bring prosperity to every region in Britain. It can be a major factor in the revival of our historic inner cities. Already, 1-5 million people depend directly or indirectly on tourism for their livelihoods. It is to the labour-intensive industries, of which tourism is the most important, that we look to reduce unemployment as our ageing manufacturing industries decline and the microchip takes over.
The cost of job creation in tourism is often a great deal lower than in most other industries and in agriculture. Moreover, those are jobs that tend to endure. For those who have redundancy payments to invest, tourism offers wider opportunities than any other industry. Recent

estimates suggest that international tourism will more than double before the end of the century. For Britain, with so many attractions in a comparatively small area, that can amount to a tremendous bonus. Unfortunately, last year the number of visitors to Britain fell. Therefore, while tourism is no lame duck industry seeking handouts, we are talking not only about investing in new jobs in tourism but of protecting existing jobs.
This is the first time that tourism has been debated in the House for over two and a half years. In his reply I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not just confine himself to a verbal recognition of the value of the tourist industry and an appreciation of all that it does. I hope that instead he will use the opportunity of this debate to show a new attitude of support by the Government to Britain's tourist industry.
I know that it is not within his province, but I hope that my hon. Friend will make a strong case to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an end to discrimination against hotel building allowances and that they will be placed on the same basis as industrial building allowances. Will he ensure that the Chancellor also recognises that tourism is the only export that bears the full rate of VAT and that it is attempting to compete against many other European countries that offer preferential rates, often zero rates, for tourist services and the purchase of goods?
Most importantly, will my hon. Friend see what can be done to ensure that grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 are made available for tourist projects throughout the country and not just in the assisted areas? I say that with real feeling, because the vast majority of my constituents in Bournemouth are at present still reeling from the thought of the possible financial consequences to them as ratepayers—I speak as a Bournemouth ratepayer—of the cost of our planned new all-the-year-round, multi-purpose leisure and conference centre upon which a start is to be made later this year.
That centre is essential if Bournemouth is to reduce its dependence on the summer season and is essential in supporting the cost of servicing the needs of the elderly. I regret that it should start life among so much hostility. I recognise that it has much to do with the present unfair domestic rating system. I look forward to its total abolition. Nothing less will suffice.
I also recognise that from April Bournemouth will benefit from the new arrangements for rate support grant funding for spending on tourism, although the calculation of the grant on the number of nights spent by visitors in the town is wrong because it ignores the cost of servicing daytime-only visitors.
However, it cannot be right that conference centres, theatres and similar projects in places such as Blackpool, Southport, Harrogate, Morecambe, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno, Skegness, Plymouth and Torbay have been or continue to be financially aided by section 4 grants or Community grants and loans whereas Bournemouth never has and cannot now receive such help. It is the ratepayer who carrries the can. That is grossly unfair competition. That matter is within the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Department, too.
I understand that new options for the section 4 scheme are being explored. I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that tourism is a nationwide industry and that aid, from whatever source, should be used not merely as an


instrument for boosting jobs but as an incentive for exploiting the true potential for tourism throughout the country, with each project being treated on merit.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will point out that the amount of money involved—about £4 million—is too small to be spread wider. I therefore urge him to treble his money for tourism, and he will find a rate of return second to none.
I seek a fairer deal, not just for some of Britain's seaside resorts but for all of them. For many of our coastal resorts, which were established a century ago, when people discovered the delights of sea-bathing, the tourist industry has remained crucial to their economy. It represents the major source of employment, despite its seasonal nature. In Bournemouth, for example, 15,000 people are directly employed by tourism, and many thousands more who are employed in the retail trades, the professions and the transportation industries rely on them.
However, there are disturbing signs of decline. Two major department stores are about to close—Woolworth's and Bealson's. Bealson's is also closing in Minehead. The company cites as a cause the declining numbers of people spending holidays in those resorts. The Pavilion theatre, which provided all-the-year-round entertainment until 1979, now opens only between October and April. Together with beach catering, a £50,000 trading profit has become a £50,000 loss within two years.
A growing number of small hotels are converting to rest homes for the elderly or into holiday flatlets. This is reducing the contribution that they make to the town's economy. The smaller hotels and guest houses, with fewer than 10 bedrooms and run by small family owners, constitute about 80 per cent. of the hotel industry. They are facing the most severe problems, and they are the most unfairly treated. It is on their behalf that I particularly appeal for help tonight.
It cannot he right that those small hotels and guest houses should pay commercial rates—rates to the council, and their fuel and energy—for the whole year, when they are open commercially for less than half the year. They regard the £960 which is added for each adult to taxable turnover by the Inland Revenue as a "board residence addition" as most unfair, particularly as it appears that this "own board tax"—as they call it—is not levied on a nationally established scale but is left entirely to the judgment of individual local tax commissioners. This is a matter which I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) is pursuing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The high cost of satisfying the Fire Precautions Act 1971 has and is causing tremendous hardship, particularly for some of the smaller establishments. For many of them it amounts to more than a year's profit, and I have a great deal of sympathy with their plea for low-interest loans for the alterations that they are required by law to make. The vast majority of smaller hoteliers and guest-houses owners feel that they have no choice but to accept such impositions, and they have a justifiable complaint when some appear to get away with avoiding those responsibilities. These are the so-called pirates, who do not register their private dwellings as commercial premises, who avoid paying commercial rates and tariffs, and who disregard all safety regulations. They are thus able to undercut the prices of those who are more responsible.
So I ask my hon. Friend to intitiate discussions with local authorities as to how this problem, in particular, can be tackled nationally, without the need for more bureaucratic registration or inspection, and which will not affect those who casually let for a short period in the summer without advertising.
If those are some of Bournemouth's problems, I know that there are many other seaside resorts in the South and on the East Coast which face the same problems—if not more. Many of them—like their piers—are neglected and decaying because they have failed to invest in their own future. Whereas most towns do not have to support their main industries from their rates, tourist towns have little choice but to ask their own ratepayers to pay for amenities designed to attract visitors. For local residents, this is a cause of understandable resentment. For the council, it is a choice between having to pay to sustain an employment base or the economic death of the town.
It is little wonder that people complain when they see public money being spent to direct tourists to towns like Wigan, to which they do not particularly want to go and which are not geared to receive them at the expense of those who want and need them. They are justified in asking the Government to treat tourism on the same basis throughout the country. It must be in the national interest that standards are consistent whether the visitor stays in Cornwall, Norfolk, Brighton, Bournemouth, Blackpool, Scotland or Southend.
I ask my hon. Friend to note the many practical problems faced by our tourist industry. I ask him in particular, in this Maritime England Year 1982, to show a special interest in England's traditional seaside resorts and to recognise the pleasure that they have given to so many families from the Monarchy downwards for more than 100 years. I ask him to give the most serious consideration to the unique and valuable contribution that they can make to our nation's economy for years to come.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. lain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on choosing this important subject for debate and on the comprehensive and persuasive way in which he deployed his argument. Time permitting, I shall not confine myself to mere platitudes on the advantages to us of the tourist industry. I shall answer his points specifically and as the occasion demands. He will appreciate that this is not a major debate on the tourist industry.
I much appreciated my hon. Friend's reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who recently resigned as Minister for Consumer Affairs. She remembered with particular pleasure her visit to Bournemouth last July when she met representatives of the local tourist industry.
My hon. Friend referred to the disappointing results experienced by the tourist industry over the past two years. It is worth recording that Britain still managed to attract nearly 11 million overseas visitors during the first 11 months of 1981 and that from them we earned over £2.8 billion, excluding fares paid to British carriers. If we add to this figure nearly £4 billion spent in Britain by our home tourists during the first nine months of the same year, it will be readily appreciated that we are talking about an industry of immense economic importance.
At the same time, the spending of those massive sums means, as my hon. Friend said, that tourism continues to provide a substantial source of employment. Given the industry's diversity and the extent of its secondary effects, I would not care to quantify exactly the total number of jobs involved, but it is likely to be in excess of 1 million.
What is also gratifying is that much of the industry's success has been attained by its own efforts. It has a welcome tradition of independence, based, I am sure, on the large number of small businesses which support it. The Government's own direct contribution—about £50 million for the United Kingdom as a whole in the current financial year—is channelled through the British Tourist Authority, the national tourist boards of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. About two-thirds of that amount is used for publicity, promotion, research and so on, with the remainder being spent on assistance for tourism projects.
My hon. Friend referred to a number of measures which he believes may help the industry. He referred, for example, to the case for ending the discrimination against hotel building allowances and placing them on the same basis as industrial buildings.
Capital allowances for expenditure on the construction and improvement of hotels were first introduced in 1978, with an initial allowance of 20 per cent. and the balance to be written down at the rate of 4 per cent. each year. We have received requests for the initial allowance to be increased while others seek a broadening of the scheme to bring in smaller hotels—those with fewer than 10 bedrooms—and other types of holiday accommodation, for example, holiday camps and self-catering accommodation.
The Government have opened up this subject to public discussion by publishing their recent Green Paper on corporation tax. I hope that those who feel strongly about the present system will respond in a constructive way to the discussion document so that their points of view can be weighed carefully in the balance.
My hon. Friend mentioned value added tax, which is also the subject of frequent representations from the tourist industry, particularly as it affects overseas visitors. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to say much more when my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget Statement is now only three weeks or so away, but I can say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received detailed submissions from the tourist industry and that he is giving extremely close consideration to the arguments put forward.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to expenditure on project assistance, under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. Successive Governments, as he said, have considered it appropriate to restrict the funds available to the assisted areas because these have combined tourism potential with the greatest need for the economic benefits tourism can bring. The Government have already announced that the coverage of the assisted areas is to be considerably reduced from next August. My right hon. Friend is now considering, with his Scottish and Welsh colleagues, whether the new reduced areas will continue to be an appropriate basis for aid for tourism projects. We have received many representations about the future basis of section 4 assistance, particularly from those areas, like my hon. Friend's, which are at present outside its scope. All that I can say at this stage is that the various

options open to us are being carefully considered and that the conclusions of this inquiry will be announced as soon as possible.
I note what my hon. Friend said about increasing the funds for the scheme, but he will appreciate that there is not very much room for manoeuvre at present and, whatever the outcome of the review, the scheme will have to continue to operate on a very selective basis. As for European Community funds, these are available in the assisted areas as a matter of community policy.
Turning briefly to general tourism assistance, as I have already said, some two-thirds of Government expenditure on tourism is available on a nationwide basis for promotion, publicity, research and the like. The English Tourist Board is spending some £l.2 million on promotion in the current year and has provided another £1.2 million to the regional tourist boards, including £81,000 to the Southern Tourist Board which takes in my hon. Friend's constituency. The British Tourist Authority has developed joint marketing plans with authorities and organisations throughout Britain and is always willing to consider new ventures aimed at bringing in more overseas visitors. I should like, at this point, to take up my hon. Friend's mention of the English Tourist Board's "Maritime England" campaign. It is already well under way and provides a splendid example of the excellent co-operation which exists between the statutory tourist board, local authorities, other public bodies and all sectors of the tourist industry. This campaign will be the largest and most spectacular event ever organised by the board and the country's first celebration of our maritime heritage. Maritime England is a national event but is of particular importance to Southern England where about 70 per cent. of the events will take place.
My hon. Friend very properly mentioned the situation in Bournemouth. I know that Bournemouth is a progressive resort which has made successful efforts to develop business and to provide new facilities without direct Government help. However, I understand that it has well-established links with the British Tourist Authority. The BTA has provided marketing advice for the new conference centre to be opened in 1984 and reports that it has started a research programme for possible international associations. It also expects to develop a joint scheme with the centre to attract international conference business. The authority also plans to look more closely at the scope for developing incentive traffic to Bournemouth and its environs, particularly from North America. This will be in conjunction with Bournemouth's department of tourism and publicity.
More generally, I understand that BTA's assistance to Bournemouth includes a joint scheme for producing regional folders in several languages, a proposal to run a joint advertising campaign in the Netherlands with BTA and Bournemouth contributing equal shares, and another scheme to help its languages schools. These are, of course, additional to BTA's other publicity from which Bournemouth might expect to benefit.
The rates and rate support grant matters are for my Department of Environment colleagues. I shall see that what my hon. Friend said is drawn to their attention within the context of my hon. Friend's views on tourism.
My hon. Friend referred to "own board tax". Questions of adjustments to profits for taxpayers are properly matters for my Treasury colleagues, and I understand that my hon.


Friend the Financial Secretary will be writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) about the adjustments made in Bournemouth.
My hon. Friend has also raised the question of what are sometimes known as pirate hoteliers. There are people who allegedly let accommodation to tourists without registering their homes as commercial premises. This is a problem which is often drawn to my Department's attention, but it is really a matter for local authorities, which have powers to curb the unauthorised use of domestic premises for commercial purposes. There are also powers to ensure that such premises comply with other statutory obligations such as health and fire regulations. There is a difficulty over providing the authorities with sufficiently firm information on which they can act, but I believe this is a problem which can be resolved only at local level.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is sufficient of a realist to have appreciated that, in a short debate of this kind, it is not possible or proper to make promises to rectify all the specific problems to which he has referred. I can,

however, inform him that even in the short time that I have been responsible for this important subject I have developed considerable sympathy for the industry's views on many of these problems. My hon. Friend may be assured that I have taken careful note of the points he has made. I shall also do my best to see that the industry's case is given full and proper consideration even though the constraints on Government expenditure mean that there is little or no scope for making changes which would involve additional calls on public funds.
I should like to end by paying tribute to the many businesses and organisations, statutory and non-statutory, which together have worked to make tourism an industry of some considerable substance in this country's economy. I am confident that, despite the problems which it faces, its underlying strengths will continue to ensure that its contribution is maintained.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven O'clock.